Tag Archives: nonviolence

Anti-China Bias in Washington Post: A Letter to Their Ombudsman

Posted on by
Reply

One of the joys of blogging is that I can respond more quickly with letters-to-the-editor on breaking news, because I have already been writing/thinking about them on my blog. Here is a letter regarding anti-China bias which I sent today to the Washington Post's Ombudsman, Deborah Howell. (I will post any response I receive in my blog.)

Dear Ms. Howell:

I must once again protest The Washington Post’s relentless editorial bias against China and China's favorite current project, the upcoming Beijing Olympics (see “Saved by China,” May 14.) For several years, whenever China has made the news, The Washington Post has jumped on all such occasions to write strongly negative editorials portraying China in the most unfriendly, unfavorable light. This negative bias is not apparent in your great newspaper toward any other nation or ethnicity. My letters-to-the-editor and my calls to you questioning this pointed hostility have been ignored. I hope that no single individual in your organization is so powerful as to feel free to disseminate his or her personal racist, belligerent perspectives toward this powerful, influential and important nation, because such attacks are unworthy and unrepresentative of your otherwise admirably balanced, objective news organization.

A loyal and concerned customer,

Nancy Pace

(Please see below, a letter I sent in October 2007)

To the Editor:

Who gains from your relentlessly adversarial, competitive slant toward China, except a few fear-mongering demagogues and their greedy, war-profiteering kin (see your mean-spirited editorial about the problems of the Three Gorges Dam, Oct. 15th.) Please consider adopting a friendlier, more open-minded editorial tone which treats all others everywhere the way we in the U.S. would like to be treated by foreign journalists. Salute and learn from others’ achievements, empathize with their failures, celebrate commonalities, accept differences, bear with weaknesses, enlighten and support one another.

Sincerely yours,

Nancy Pace

Also below is a pre-Olympics comparison of Chinese and American human rights' records I recently posted on my blog, www.epharmony.com (which offers commentary on breaking news at the intersection of politics, peace, culture and spirituality.) This post also objects to widespread American media bias against China, currently led, I believe, by the Washington Post.

http://www.epharmony.com/blog/_archives/2008/4/22/3654378.html

Thank you very much for your interest. I would welcome a telephone discussion with you.

Are Hiroshima and 9/11 Morally Equivalent? Obama and Wright Disagree.

Posted on by
Reply


Barack Obama recently disagreed with Jeremiah Wright’s statements equating America’s wartime efforts with terrorism. Wright had cited biblical passages wherein God condemns (damns) anyone who deliberately kills innocents, whether at Hiroshima or at Ground Zero (9/11).
 
Although I support Obama’s candidacy wholeheartedly, I disagree with him here, preferring Reverend Wright’s logic. With Wright, I see no moral difference between a weak, fallible organization (or individual) setting off a suicide bomb in a marketplace, and a big, powerful, fallible nation dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian population—except, of course, that powerful nations have more options. Both warriors and terrorists say they’re fighting for survival, and both often choose strategies which collaterally harm innocents over diplomacy and other alternatives because they think such violence a quicker, surer way to attain their goals.
 
Both soldiers and terrorists justify deliberately killing innocents by the rightness of their causes—the only difference being, of course, that powerful nations have access to huge armies and limitless lethal technologies, while less-powerful groups have weak armies, few weapons and little money. That’s why terrorists, hoping to maximize their impact, focus international media attention on their unaddressed grievances (and harass their oppressors) by strapping on cheap explosives.
 
Soldiers and terrorists alike feel they are forced into doing the bad things they do to prevent further injustices. Yet this argument for “just war”—that sometimes violence is necessary to prevent greater injustices and harm—is also a perfectly reasonable argument for terrorism.
 
Mind you, I don’t buy either argument. Positive, peaceful alternatives often work, if one only accepts that compromises, though disappointing, are never final and are changeable later, regardless of the unsavory present trade-offs necessary to prevent further catastrophes.
 
War doesn’t prevent injustices. War itself is always a grievous injustice to all involved in it. Most soldiers and their families are catastrophically exploited by war. 90% of the victims of war are civilians. Unfortunately, when citizens manipulated into vindictive indignation over present and past injustices march into wars, they rarely consider all the many future injustices which that war will inevitably inflict on both sides.
 
Whether or not we act violently, injustices occur. Whether we fight wars or rise up together in peaceful protest, some people will suffer unjustly, some will die. The Jews died in the Holocaust despite the war effort and perhaps also because of it. Europe is now united; tyrants come and go. No matter whether we choose peace, terrorism, or war, we cannot prevent all injustices. But we can avoid adding to their sum by accepting compromises, listening to all sides, and steadfastly rejecting the gravest injustice of all—war itself.
 
I’m not a pacifist. I would defend my family and neighbors from bad guys climbing in our windows and knocking down our doors—a scenario far less likely to happen if my government maintains strong local militias and promotes international good will by working for international justice and against war. I certainly would not travel to another country and throw my weight around, except as part of a globally-mandated UN peacekeeping force.
 
Violent solutions to conflicts, whether war or terrorism, always make problems more intractable in the long run. Violence sometimes seems appealing in the short-term, but not when both sides of the story are heard. Over time, just as in families, violent solutions stoke anger, resentment and vengefulness, and prevent and postpone just and lasting resolutions and peace.
 
Although there are always two sides to every conflict, loyal combatants often resist hearing out the ‘other’ side. Powerful greedy nations that initiate wars of conquest against weaker forces often refuse to negotiate with their enemies. Why negotiate when you can get what you want through attrition, slaughter and unconditional surrender?
 
When wars end, war-weary citizens on both sides, hearing the stories of the victims who bore the tragic consequences of the stubbornness, greed, ignorance, intolerance, hubris, vengefulness, anger and megalomania behind all wars and terrorism, finally realize that it was never the courageous, idealistic grandchildren they sent out to kill each other who were most to blame, but rather the safe, rich, hard-headed old leaders on both sides who failed to keep the peace.
 
Too often, we prefer being “right” to living and letting others live in peace. We think we have to be right about so many things—about who’s the bad guy, who started it, who’s at fault, what happened, who meant well and who didn’t, who did what to whom, whose ideology or form of government is superior, whose religion is true, who is weird and strange and cultish and backward and disgusting, who gets to be in control, who gets to be the one with the gold who makes all the rules….
 
The truth is that nobody yet has a clear picture of what human life is all about, what we’re doing here, and how best to look upon the world, ourselves, and one another. Even the leading scholars agree that the more they know, the more they know they don’t know. In every conflict, humility, acceptance and mutual respect are the wisest guides.
 
When we insist on being ‘right’ rather than making the compromises necessary to live together in peace, we are making the choice of terrorism/war over freedom. What is freedom, if not the freedom to live one’s life and pursue one’s dreams in peace?
 
Someday, they will give a war and no one will come. This will happen when we stop worrying about being right and in total control (both are foolish illusions in this nuclear age) and instead, hold ourselves accountable to the highest universal standards of treating all others as we would like to be treated, respecting and supporting human life everywhere. When this happens, we will enter a more peaceful, harmonious age.
 
We will, that is, if some of us are still here. The work of global peaceful transformation is so urgent. As Einstein famously predicted, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
 
Since we can no longer completely control nuclear weapons, we must work now to transform ourselves and our own violent cultures into cultures of peace. Amish, Quaker and Buddhist families alike learn and teach gentleness successfully; they all enjoy unselfish, peaceful cultures. Why shouldn’t the rest of us learn, too?
 
Cultures change whenever individuals learn peaceful ways of dealing with their own personal conflicts, and then optimize their cultural institutions to educate others about harmonious relations, diplomacy, and global justice. Institutions such as public media (the airwaves and the internet) as well as private media, educational systems, charitable foundations, political and service organizations, private corporations, public agencies, and international cooperatives can all be exploited to promote peace.
 
People are realizing that war and terrorism are mirrors of each other. They are merely two forms of culturally-acceptable (in certain circles) violence we inflict on one another. Until more cultural leaders make the paradigm shift away from both war and terrorism—and the rest follow—we and all our children everywhere will be increasingly at risk for more injustices, more wars, more terrorism, more Holocausts, more Hiroshimas….
 
Someday, Barack too will see that this is true.
 

A Pre-Olympics Comparison of Human Rights Violations in China and the U.S.

Posted on by
Reply

When my book club recently discussed a wonderful novel about China, Snow Flower and the Secret Fan, I noticed that, like many Americans, most of us tend to think of China as a much greater violator of human rights than the U.S.A. The hosting of the Olympic Games in Beijing has certainly raised our level of questioning, along with, too often, our cultural biases. But the truth is, both countries have serious problems with human rights violations, and in some areas, our U.S. record is far weaker than China's.

 

Neither of the two governments has yet adequately addressed issues of poverty, racial discrimination, hunger, homelessness, and equitable education and health care among their populations, although China’s recent governmental policies and decisions have resulted in a Chinese economy which has grown more steadily and much faster than ours during the last decade, greatly benefiting their people’s standard of living–while ours has increasingly been failing us.

 

Among our country's very legitimate gripes about Chinese human rights is China's lack of freedom of the press. The U.S. has serious issues of corporate control over opinion in mainstream media outlets (our big TV channels have never seriously attempted to address the present topic of comparative human rights violations, for instance); even so, the U.S. (with a very free internet and many other independent news media outlets) still remains among the freest countries in the world, as far as freedom of speech and freedom of the press are concerned. We would all strongly wish to see China improve in press and speech freedom. Personally, I hope China finds some way to have a free internet without the hate, lies, and pornography our internet endures, but so far, that’s tricky for both cultures.

 

China strictly disallows secession from its union (Tibet, Taiwan), just as our own government once bloodily disallowed secession from our own U.S. “union,” of our southern Confederate states (although we wildly celebrated Texas’ secession from Mexico, as well as the breakup of the Soviet Union, so the purity of the principles of union and secession remain pretty arbitrary.) Like China's government, our own government hurries to put down any civil unrest, disruptions, and riots (see Watts and many other U.S. rebellions throughout history…. ) Like China, the U.S. also continues to refuse to consider either sovereignty or separation from the U.S. of many of our U.S. former colonial possessions–for instance, Puerto Rico, and others.

 

Americans are also legitimately upset about China's one-child policy, about the many who have been coerced into unwanted abortions or punished for their “anti-social” choices. Certainly the availability of abortion itself seems a human rights violation to many Americans. On the other hand, few Americans are aware of the enormity of the Chinese over-population problem (not enough food and jobs, for instance), which the one-child policy has greatly helped to address. Millions in China have been raised from extreme poverty since this program was instituted.

 

Many also look upon China's one-(communist)-party system as a violation of human rights, and indeed, most first world democracies do boast parliaments with a wide diversity of parties represented across the broadest possible political spectrum. Nevertheless, as in the U.S., most Chinese citizens (not all) consider their government to be not only legitimate, but also representative. In China, as in the U.S., many factions and perspectives contest within their one-party system and our (also very limited) two-party (market economy) system. Dissidents in both countries have attempted to broaden real power to more than the present status of one or two similar parties, but so far both political systems have proven resistant to change.

 

My point is, both of these two countries have serious problems with human and political rights, freedoms, and opportunities.

 

What the Chinese find most egregious about U.S. human rights violations are, of course, those areas of human rights in which their country (China) is comparatively far superior to ours. For instance, we have vastly more violent and commonplace civil crime, many more law-enforcement violations of civil rights, by far the world’s largest (in percentage of population, as well as total) prison population, customary brutality to prisoners, serious challenges to workers rights to unionize, significant abuse of women and children living in poverty (rape, prostitution, drug addiction, alcoholism, physical abuse…), and we also have far too much money in politics, threatening our democracy. We have also failed for many years to ratify popular international conventions on human rights, particularly the rights of women and children, as well as international environmental conventions.

 

We are also a serious violator of the sovereignty and human rights of citizens of many other countries around the world. Consider the civilian deaths and humanitarian disasters associated with our invasion of Iraq, our secret jails around the world, our government-accepted use of torture, Abu Graib, ten+ violent regime changes orchestrated by the U.S. in other countries, Guantanamo Bay…. At least China keeps its human rights violations mostly at home, and in recent history, has not invaded, nor dropped nuclear bombs on civilian populations, nor posted its armies or political prisons throughout the world, as the U.S. has.

 

The Chinese began issuing their annual “Human Rights Record of the United States” only after the U.S. issued annual scathing reports on over a hundred other countries (but did not critique our own distressing human rights record in the U.S.) The Chinese conclude their report with a statement that I agree with: 

 

“To respect and safeguard human rights is an important achievement in the progress of human society, and an important symbol of modern civilization. It is also a common goal of people of all countries and races, and a key theme of the tide of progress in our time. All countries have an obligation to make efforts to promote and protect human rights in their own territories, and to promote international cooperation in accordance with the norms of international relations. No country in the world should view itself as the incarnation of human rights, and use human rights as a tool to interfere in the affairs of, and exert pressure on, other countries, and to realize its own strategic interests. The U.S. reigns over other countries and releases “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” year after year. Its arrogant critiques of the human rights of other countries are always accompanied by a deliberate ignoring of serious human rights problems on its own territory. This is not only inconsistent with universally recognized norms of international relations, but also exposes the double standards and downright hypocrisy of the United States on the human rights issue, and inevitably impairs its international image. We hereby advise the U.S. government to face its own human rights problems and give up its unwise practices of applying double standards on human rights issues.”

 

Here is a link to China's 2008 Report on U.S. human rights violations:  

 

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/21087/1/

 

It is my personal wish that every country would treat all other nations as they would like to be treated (the golden rule, Confucius' rule too), that we would all conquer our enemies in the only way that works over time, by making them friends, and by supporting their most cherished projects and treating them with respect, courtesy, and appreciation. Every country has weaknesses and strengths, and every country needs acceptance and kindness in order to improve. We all have much to teach, and to learn from one another.

 

Please send your comments to njcpace@gmail.com and I'll post them below this blog…. Thank you! 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Feminist for Obama

Posted on by
Reply

I love Marianne Williamson (www.marianne.com). Like me, she believes in Barack Obama. We are both feminists. For me, feminism means being able to live your life in integrity with your own values and preferences and perspectives, not according to someone else's belief system about what is feminine or gender-appropriate.

For more insight on Marianne's wonderful take on feminism, read her great book A Woman's Worth. But for now–here's Marianne's endorsement of Barack Obama, a true friend of women and men alike:

“What! You're not voting for Hillary? But I thought you were such a feminist!”

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times. So let me explain why I'm not voting with my vagina…

As a feminist, I believe nurturing and nourishing a world trying to be born is the most efficient way to counter the malevolent effects of a world that needs to pass away.

That is why I support Obama.

As a feminist, I believe inclusion is more powerful and life producing than is exclusion.

That is why I support Obama.

As a feminist, I believe tending and mending is a more effective way to deal with the world's stress points than is fighting or fleeing.

That is why I support Obama.

As a feminist, I believe having a vision for what I want the world to become is as important as solving problems that have arisen in the world that is.

That is why I support Obama.

As a feminist, I'm more concerned with creating a world my great-great-grandchildren can live in than in trying to make things better for me right now.

That is why I support Obama.

As a feminist, I am convinced that building authentic relationships is a more lasting, creative way to build peace than just strategizing to destroy enemies and manipulate alliances.

That is why I support Obama.

As a feminist, I relate more to the honest sharing of a wife who sometimes misses a note, than to the too-scripted sharing of a woman who never does.

That is why I support Obama.

As a feminist, I look forward to voting for the first woman president; but when I do, I want her to be one whose positions and policies reflect a feminine worldview.

That is why I support Obama.

As a feminist, I get that masculine armor is not our strength, our ability to love is our greatest power, and our urge to repair is our greatest calling.

That is why I support Obama, pray for him unceasingly, work to strengthen his chances….and will support whoever wins.

– by Marianne Williamson, February 2008, www.marianne.com

And on another note….
The Philadelphia Daily News (www.philly.com/dailynews) wrote a very smart endorsement of BarackObama a few days ago…

VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA

THE CHOICE in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary is not only the one between a white woman and a black man. It's a choice between the past and the future.

More specifically, the nation must decide how to face the future racing toward us in the form of slumping home sales, unstable financial markets and increased joblessness – and staring at us from the Green Zone in Iraq and the beds at veterans hospitals.

Should Democrats choose someone who will employ hard-won – even bitter – experiences gained in a past Democratic administration, or reach beyond political truisms toward a new (and untried) model of governing?

Neither choice is obvious. Perhaps that's why the race has gone on for so long.

But the long slog through 44 primaries and caucuses has confirmed for us that Sen. Barack Obama's vision of change – and the way he plans to pursue it – is what we need right now. Badly.

This is a campaign that really began six years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001. Not only was the U.S. attacked and seriously wounded, it did not bounce back the way “the land of the free and home of the brave” should have. In fact, it still suffers from post-traumatic stress.

That day and its aftermath cried out for a revolution of values: a clear-eyed shared vision, a cooperative effort, a unified purpose. It cried out for a recognition that conventional warfare and conventional responses to domestic challenges in an era of globalization were not enough.

That cry was not answered.

Instead, the Bush administration embarked on an unconscionable plan to exploit the fear we all felt that day for political gain. It lied us into a disastrous war in Iraq, a staggering, record deficit at home, a weakening of the constitutional structure on which the country rests, and poisonous lines of division among Americans. It led us to a place where 81 percent of Americans say we're on the wrong track.

Contrary to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, we believe Barack Obama is more likely to be “ready on Day One” to lead us in a new direction. Because of his experience.

Sure, Clinton has more “experience” of a sort. For one thing, she has 14 more years on earth. How much of this experience is directly applicable to the job of president is, at best, debatable.

We are frankly troubled by her assumption that her husband's administration and accomplishments were her own. And if her equation holds, that the first spouse is an equal partner in the administration, then the reappearance of Bill Clinton in the White House is a prospect we have a hard time reconciling with the work that needs to be done.

THERE IS a way to match Clinton's and Obama's performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns.

A candidate's campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.

It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future – and that they have the power to change things.

It would motivate them to hold their representatives accountable for making it happen. That is, after all, the only way to get us out of Iraq, to address global warming, to make us energy-independent. It's the only way to resist the forces arrayed against providing universal health care, rebuilding our infrastructure and returning our schools to world-class status. It's the only way to give our children the means to compete with children in other parts of the world who are healthier, better-educated and have more opportunities than many of our own.

An Obama administration would be freer of the the corrupting influence of big-money donors and corporate interests. Obama has raised $240 million overall, with half coming in contributions of less than $200. People who contribute to political campaigns can feel they “own” a candidate and so Obama would owe allegiance to the wide swath of America that has financed his campaign.

Based on his experience in running a quarter-billion-dollar enterprise with thousands upon thousands of volunteers, we could expect an Obama administration to be well-managed and cost-effective, with the president choosing forward-thinking advisers committed to his program, demanding that they work as a team and pay attention to details.

He would be steady and calm, given neither to irrational exuberance or outbursts of anger. He would make mistakes, that's for sure, but he could be expected to recognize them, adjust, and move forward.

He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views.

Obama's unprecedented appeal to younger voters is significant not only because it expands the electorate, which is vital. It's also a validation of his promise as a president to be free of the baby-boomer/Vietnam/segregation-era hangups.

Younger people are more egalitarian, more accepting of diversity, and more comfortable with rapid change. They also are less confined by old resentments or regrets.

AND AN OBAMA administration would lower the tone of the rhetoric that separates us.

As New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has said, Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who has the skill and eloquence to help us raise our eyes and our aspirations beyond individual, personal concerns, beyond religion or region or race or gender, beyond our well-founded fears to a shared destiny.

Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.

www.philly.com/dailynews

GO BARACK! ROCK THE PENNSYLVANIA VOTE!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama, Like Kipling’s Kim, is a “Friend of All the World”

Posted on by
Reply

I wonder if Barack Obama ever read Rudyard Kipling’s novel, Kim, about a half-British, half-Indian child growing up happily, as Barack did, in an amazingly diverse culture; Kim’s world was India, Barack’s Hawaii and Indonesia. Kim’s nickname was “little friend of all the world,” and he, like Barack, drew on his hard-won expertise in navigating a mysteriously multi-faceted childhood world to later become successful in “the great game” of politics. 

 

Certainly, Kipling’s own memories of growing up in British Raj India influenced his own many adult contributions as an eloquent communicator and cultural ambassador.

 

I thought about these many fascinating commonalities while reading Amanda Ripley’s story in today’s Time Magazine about Barack’s anthropologist mother. What adventures she and Barack shared living in the fascinating mélange that is Indonesia—17,500 islands, 230 million people, 300 languages, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Dutch/Christian traditions–and later in multicultural Hawaii, where Barack attended, on scholarship, a prestigious private high school.

 

Among Barack’s many strengths as a Presidential candidate are his openness to different cultural and political perspectives, and his non-polarizing, accepting attitude toward people from all walks of life. No one is ever a stranger to this non-ideological, caring, international rock star.

 

What a fascinating youth compelled Barack Obama, our own young “friend of all the world,” to overcome petty divisions and partisan distractions, offer leadership and service to his own nation, and bring the world together to resolve our most pressing common global problems—the ravages of disease, injustice, hopelessness, hunger, greed, environmental degradation, natural disasters, ignorance, addiction, prejudice, nuclear proliferation, crime, poverty, war, terrorism, and violence itself.

 

Please send comments to njcpace@gmail.com and I'll post them below this article. Thanks – Nancy 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Moqtada al-Sadr One of the Good Guys?

Posted on by
Reply

I only know what I read in the papers, and I’m nervous about speaking up for someone who is, for the moment at least, being demonized by the Bush administration, especially someone who is currently shooting back at American forces, albeit in self-defense. But I must raise the question of whether Moqtada al-Sadr might not be one of the “good guys,” a strong, spiritual leader whom world opinion should now be ecumenically supporting.

 

Al-Sadr is apparently a wildly popular leader of the Shiite poor, who, time and again, has demonstrated his commitment to peacefully resisting the overwhelmingly-superior military forces bent upon murdering him. Aside from his courageous refusal to relinquish the ancient homelands of his followers to invaders who would steal and exploit them, and his stubborn unwillingness to be assassinated, what has he done to deserve universal media condemnation and abandonment in the west?

 

Because al-Sadr’s charismatic leadership is seen by the west’s most powerful leaders as a major barrier to their hegemony in the Middle East, few journalists seem willing to raise this question. Yet several times throughout this conflict, when it has seemed temporarily expedient for the U.S. to leave al-Sadr in peace, he has urged patience and forbearance among his followers even as the wide-scale destruction of his country by foreign occupiers has continued.

 

Currently, American forces are attacking al-Sadr’s Mahdi army in oil-rich Basra, which is right across the border from Iran. Perhaps Mr. Cheney hopes to provoke just enough Iranian retaliation for this particular aggression to finally justify his own longed-for invasion of Iran’s oil fields? Patriots in Basra and Iran share far more in common with one another than with their American attackers; surely the Iranian government cannot be expected to indefinitely contain the passions of their red-blooded youth, currently standing passively by, watching while their brother-Shiites in Basra are being slaughtered.

 

Isn’t it time we reconsidered the unquestioned place we have given al-Sadr in our western pantheon of demonized enemies? He is a leader to whom the majority of Shiites in Iraq currently pledge their allegiance, one who has often turned the other cheek even while his beloved followers were being killed. Despite being repeatedly stalked, discredited, attacked, betrayed, and occasionally befriended by President Bush, his millions of followers trust him unreservedly to make their decisions for them. Shouldn’t journalists be speaking out loudly and clearly against the attacks upon him? Who are the bad guys here, and who are the good guys?

 

How can we expect al-Sadr’s forces to passively turn in their guns when our own country feels free to unilaterally initiate pre-emptive wars, invade, occupy and shoot up foreign country sides and villages and cities, interfere with sovereign nations’ internal affairs, drop nuclear and conventional bombs on civilian populations, disrupt livelihoods and lives, kill innocents, and stockpile armaments enough to end life on earth many times over? Al-Sadr has not invaded America. The reverse has happened.

 

The Bible does not say “the lamb shall lie down with the lion,” but “the lion shall lie down with the lamb.” In other words, powerful countries must first let their weaker neighbors live in peace. Our own interests, even as citizens of the mega-powerful United States, are served only when our leaders humble themselves to offer good will to all other nations, and treat all our neighbors as we would wish to be treated. It is the traditional moral duty of the military to protect the weak from those who would hurt them, not to push the weak around in order to get whatever a highly unpopular, unresponsive and unrepresentative administration wants when they want it.

 

The willingness to turn to violence to resolve conflicts, whether through state (military) terrorism or through civilian terrorism, turns out to be the problem itself, and not, as many have tried to persuade us, any particular ideology, ethnicity or religion. The burning question too often overlooked in every conflict is: which side is committed to accommodation, compromise and non-violent resolution of this conflict, and which side isn’t?

 

In the past, partisans loyally embraced only their own leaders as the “good guys,” regardless of their personal records of using violence or keeping the peace–whether Bush or bin Laden, Saddam or Arafat, Hirohito or Mao or Stalin or Cheney or Eisenhower or Hitler. In the future, we will realize that the “good guys” are those real leaders, found in homes, businesses, communities, nations, and throughout the world, who are committed to resolving difficult conflicts—which are perfectly natural and human—harmoniously and peacefully. On the other hand, those violent soldiers and suicide bombers representing belligerent aggressors and extremist zealots will in the future clearly be identified as “the bad guys” of our time.

 

All-out war makes sense to me only when people are cornered in their own homes, fighting for survival against overwhelming odds, as al-Sadr’s followers currently seem to be.

 

More and more people today are recognizing man’s inhumanity to man—whether seen in bulldozed homes, in the shattered bodies of innocent children, or in the maimed and traumatized minds and bodies of young soldiers from every land—exactly for what it is, regardless of context, and despite all the attractive ideological, ethnic, religious, and national colors and flavors violence always comes wrapped in.

 

Around the world, journalists, activists and average citizens are turning away from the angry diatribes of opportunistic demagogues and ideologues bent upon stirring their fellow-citizens to torture and murder, and instead, embracing the world’s highest universal values: the oneness of all mankind and the sanctity of human life.

 

Shouldn't we all be supporting those who are upholding these important values, and resisting the use violent solutions in the present conflict in Iraq?

 

Please send your comments to njcpace@gmail.com, and I'll post them below this article. Thank you! 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts for Hillary-Voters (of a Certain Age)

Posted on by
Reply


Many of my women friends want to see Hillary Clinton elected President so much that they refuse to seriously consider Barack Obama at all. They’re curious about him, to be sure–no one could overlook all the campaign excitement or miss seeing at least a few of his ads. But they would never be so disloyal as to actually listen to one of his speeches or read his campaign literature for more details. They tell me quite frankly, they’ve got a nominee, one who looks a lot like them, so would I please just leave it alone?
 
I've always admired Hillary’s dignity, and of course, her many achievements. She's a survivor in what many women have experienced as a rough-and-tumble man’s world. We identify with her tragic husband-troubles, and respect her commitment to her marriage. We celebrate her moxie when men have dismissed her contributions and disrespected her ambitions. We’ve waited breathlessly our whole lives for this chance to elect a smart, capable woman President of the <?xml:namespace prefix = u1 />United States, and we know what a strong woman-Presidency could mean to our daughters and granddaughters. As years have passed, as she's won battles for women and children, we’ve smiled with Hillary because we know what she knows, that doing well is the best revenge.
 
What we are not doing is asking the question that we as patriots, citizens, and voters should ask, are duty-bound, even, to ask: Which candidate would make the best President?
 
However generously we acknowledge Hillary’s abilities and achievements, we should thoughtfully consider Barack’s as well, if only because our long experience informs us that the next President must be armed with an unusually fine and rare combination of strengths and abilities to successfully navigate the dangerous shoals ahead.
 
Of course Hillary and Barack are both well-informed about the state of the world. But Barack is truly gifted in human relations—in people skills, diplomacy, and communication. He empathizes uniquely with difference and diversity—with those having different agendas, cultures, perspectives, memories, and understandings than his own. Our next President must be brilliant, but also extraordinarily able to relate to disparate viewpoints and interests in order to arrive at the inclusive solutions which alone can resolve complex global problems.
 
Of course Hillary and Barack are both experienced public servants. Hillary’s seven years, and Barack’s eleven, of public accountability in elected office are just the beginning. Hillary’s many years as an attorney and as first lady gave her just as much opportunity for growth as did Barack’s years of community organizing, his work as a civil rights attorney, and his professorship in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School.
 
Hillary’s whole life has prepared her to be a tough political in-fighter, capable of ramming through incremental changes in the face of almost insurmountable opposition. Barack, on the other hand, disarms both potential and perceived adversaries through his non-polarizing approaches to problem-solving. He seeks, finds, and articulates common ground and mutual goals, disagrees amiably, and steadily builds both consensus and grassroots support through his hard work and clear, eloquent, impassioned communications.
 
Of course both Hillary and Barack have achieved great things, or they wouldn’t be where they are today. But Obama’s years of greatest productivity and achievement are arguably still ahead of him, while Hillary seems thrilled with her chance to put the finishing touches on her once-aggressive 60’s-era agenda. She has earned her recognition and vindication, but while she’s enjoying it, Barack and his generation, and the next one too, have rocketed past her into a tomorrow Hillary can’t visit even in her dreams.
 
Both Hillary and Barack are tested and tenacious campaigners and fearless competitors. Hillary has fifteen years of Washington experience on Barack, whose present stature derives mostly from his work ethic, brilliant planning and organizing, and charismatic leadership born of strong character, values, empathy, wisdom, and hope. Barack has risen to every challenge on his path, and he has always emerged ever-closer to a national mandate for leadership.
 
In their very differently-conducted campaigns, Hillary and Barack have given us new insight into their personalities and character. But Barack has also given those who’ve followed his trajectory a tantalizing taste of what it would be like to have a strong, candid, universally-respected, and visionary President on whom we could rely for trustworthy, respectful leadership, for inspiration, and example.
 
Hillary is burdened with our nation's collective memory of past nasty campaigns and embarrassing setbacks. Unfortunately, she is a somewhat polarizing figure, distrusted and disliked still by too many voters. Barack, too, has fought difficult campaigns—beginning in Illinois, a state famous for its tough political climate—and has emerged squeaky-clean, greatly loved, and consistently elected in landslides by a constituency mirroring the wide range of backgrounds, interests, ages, genders and ethnicities found across America.
 
Ever since a skinny guy with a funny name no one could remember took on Hillary’s formidably-organized, well-heeled and internationally-recognized campaign, Americans who have read his books and listened to him speak about his plans for America have begun to write their own hopes and dreams upon the fresh new slate which is Barack Obama.
 
If nothing else, we’ve learned from our beloved civil rights and feminist leaders of the past that we cannot make good decisions about the best person for any job by considering the color of their skin, their race, or their gender. We must instead carefully weigh the content of their character, and thoughtfully consider their suitability for the job at hand. I think Hillary well-suited to be a Secretary of Health and Human Services, and her husband would be a formidable Supreme Court Justice. Consider, ladies, that a unifying Obama Presidency may be just what we need to help us find our way through today's troubles, toward a future we’ll be proud to leave our grandchildren.
 
 
(Nancy Pace blogs on breaking news at the intersection of politics, peace, culture, and spirituality at www.epharmony.com.)
 
 
 
Please send comments to njcpace@gmail.com. Thank you!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Clinton Coronation or an Obama Revolution?

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary can’t wait to put the finishing touches on her wonderfully aggressive 60’s agenda, while Barack is at home in a tomorrow Hillary can’t visit even in her dreams.

 

Hillary is thrilled with the chance to add more contributions to her amazing lifetime list, while Barack is thrilled with America’s chances for real change when he is President.

 

Hillary is amazed at where she’s been and what she’s been able to accomplish, looking forward to recognition and vindication for her life’s work, while Barack envisions efficiently accomplishing today’s most pressing American policy goals and then moving forward to heal the world’s common global challenges.

 

Hillary loves herself-in-power ruling over her former enemies, while Barack loves the-power-in-himself leading a unified America and world into a hopeful 21st century.

 

Shall generations await coronation of Jeb Bush into an inevitable succession of Clinton and Bush kings (and queen) reigning in hubris over a 20th century past? Or will we charge our servant Barack Obama to lead us into an American future of unimaginable possibilities?

 

 

 

Please send comments to njcpace@gmail.com . Thank you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take This 40-Question Quiz: “Hillary or Barack???” (My Score Was Barack 40, Hillary 0)

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary and Barack both have wonderful abilities and qualities.

However, pick only the one candidate whom you feel is the BEST qualified:

 

 

Whose campaign runs like the country should run?

 

Who believes in a transparent government?

 

Who will tell the truth if they do something wrong?

 

Who trusts the public to be able to handle the truth?

 

Who values advisors who disagree?

 

Who respects and welcomes opposing points of view?

 

Who won’t hurry into war?

 

Who will resist the pressures of special interests and big money?

 

Whose family will be a credit to (and a delight in) the White House?

 

Whose tenure will reflect most positively upon America?

 

Who is liked and respected by all members of Congress and the Supreme Court?

 

Who can explain confusing issues to the American public?

 

Who can we believe when we hear conflicting stories?

 

Who is the least partisan candidate?

 

Who has the most global perspectives?

 

Who has an audacious vision of where to go, and a detailed plan for how to get there?

 

Who has the leadership and executive skills to solve even our biggest problems?

 

Whose example inspires us all to make personal sacrifices for the common good?

 

Who will guide us thoughtfully through national emergencies, tragedies, and catastrophes?

 

Who inspires our youth to greater effort, contribution, and productivity?

 

Who are national and world leaders eager to work with?

 

Who is it impossible not to like and admire?

 

Who do we most want to see succeed?

 

Who can heal our many divisions?

 

Who holds to moral principles under pressure?

 

Who has sound judgment under pressure?

 

Who reaches out in friendship to all foreign leaders and ordinary citizens?

 

Who will bind up the nation’s wounds?

 

Who can be counted on to defend us wisely from those who would do us harm?

 

Whose leadership inspires all the world’s peoples?

 

Who will move citizens of all ages and backgrounds toward greater civic involvement?

 

Who is the most intellectually broad-banded?

 

Who has the best “people skills”?

 

Who understands minority perspectives?

 

Who can offer global leadership toward solutions to common problems?

 

Who can sell tough solutions to the American public?

 

Who do Republicans not mind losing to?

 

Who inspires the confidence of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike?

 

Who do I look forward to listening to, weekly or more often, for the next eight years?

 

Who has the potential to become America’s greatest President, in her time of greatest need?

 

 

Please send comments to njcpace@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charisma, Courage, Leadership: MLK’s Heroic Legacy

Posted on by
Reply

A few decades ago, on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, I ignorantly explained to my curious classroom that Dr. King was important because he freed a lot of black people. A courageous and well-informed young (black) student raised her hand and gently reminded me: “He freed white people too.”

 

Many black Christian churches proudly plan welcoming celebrations in Dr. King’s honor, in part because he was one of their own. But Dr. King was one of our own too, whoever we are, whatever our race or religion or nationality.

 

Dr. King was that rare, brave, idealistic hero willing to courageously stand up publicly, to speak out, and thus risk his life, so that all who dreamed, with him, of non-violent political change, equality of opportunity in America, and an end to racism, war, and poverty, could find own their own courage in his brave leadership, and walk beside him. 

 

Dr. King's life and stirring words have touched, in our own generation, another great and inspiring leader, Barack Obama, who just as courageously as Dr. King, leads us today, encouraging us to work with him in unity for change.

 

In 1967, at a time when nationalistic fervor made opposition to the Vietnam war an agonizing choice, Dr. King spoke out boldly:  “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.”

 

Dr. King’s words could not be more relevant today. Barack Obama has been equally bold in his own steadfast opposition to the Iraq war since before its inception, when nearly everyone else was calling for the much more popular idea of vengeance and retaliation after the 9/11 tragedy.

 

If Dr. King were alive today, he would be working to help Barack Obama, today’s bravest American hero, as he courageously leads us to work together for political reform reflecting our deepest American values and ideals. 

 

 Please send your comments to njcpace@gmail.com .