From 1787 to 2009, a span of 222 years, this nation has grown, developed, and changed without ever taking time to objectively consider if our identity as a nation has changed as well. Certainly we have fought wars, passed amendments and legislation, even held great rallies in the streets as this leader or that has declared the need for our nation to go in one direction or another. However, at no point since 1787 have we gathered together the disparate viewpoints of our peoples to consider what we desire to be as a nation.
Some would argue that no such gathering, no such reconsideration, is necessary. We have a Constitution and a Declaration, and all the rest is just tinkering. I am here to argue the opposite. In 1787 the greatest military threats were cannons and clipper ships. The greatest threat to privacy was a physical search of one's home. The fastest way to transmit messages was by horse courier. Benjamin Franklin was still figuring out how to conduct electricity. The Constitution would not have been ratified if not for a compromise making African Americans 3/5 of a human being. And there were only 13 states in the Union.
Life was vastly different 222 years ago in the United States. The Founders of this nation foresaw this eventuality and provided for a government that could grow and development as needed. Not only did they provide for individual amendments to be proposed by Congress, but also for the States to call for a Convention to Amend the Constitution, when broader discussion is needed.
Today we find ourselves at a crossroads of two ideologies.
One which says we should continue to adhere to the ways of our forbearers; limit government to protection and infrastructure, keep public policy focused around growing profit and protecting privacy, when moral questions do arise look to the Bible. We have come to call this the Conservative viewpoint. In 1787 this limited role of central government was called the Anti-Federalist viewpoint.
The other point of view says that the government should be a force of the will of the people. It should be used to resolve great problems in order to create a more stable, safer, more peaceful daily existence for the citizen. It is believed this can be done by citizens contributing equitably into taxes and then the government spending that money on programs designed to accomplish the goals of the electorate. They believe those goals should be education, infrastructure, healthcare, sciences, art, maintaining environmental balance, and providing a safety net for those who have fallen. We have come to call this the Liberal viewpoint. In 1787 this activist role of central government was called the Federalist viewpoint.
We stand here, over 2 centuries later, still having the same political arguments. While all around us the nature of our culture changes. Individual citizens can participate in a global economy. Identities can be stolen by people you have never met. A vile of fluid can kill millions of people in hours. We can fly into space while robots vacuum our floors. Thousands of people can lose their homes because a few bankers came up with bad plan.
The practical application of our government has also changed over time. We have a central bank, privately run, standing in opposition to our original design. We have a military that spans the globe, also standing in opposition to our original design. We have organizations whose sole purpose is to gather money and give it to politicians in order to influence them yet, because they are incorporated as non-profits, this is not considered bribery.
These lists of examples go on and on, yet the fundamental philosophies of governing and economics in this nation have not changed, adapted, or even been reconsidered in 222 years. On one side stand the federalists, liberals, and socialists, on the other the anti-federalists, neo-conservatives, and capitalists. And on both sides stand the banks, eagerly buying influence and gathering profit.
What has been the result? Every generation faces economic collapse and/or nation threatening war. Is this a history of successful management just because some have become wealthier?
Perhaps it is no longer time to choose sides. Perhaps arguing for some comfortable middle ground is no longer an acceptable practice either. Perhaps it is time to accept that what we have been doing is not working and what we need is a new plan. Perhaps it is time to exercise the authority granted to us in the Constitution to hold a National Convention and debate a Bill of Amendments designed to move our nation forward.
The failure of the American system is that the executive takes too much power unto itself, the legislature can't accomplish anything, the judiciary is hamstrung by vague and contradictory laws, there is no accountability for politicians, and partisanship has created divided loyalties. We need something new.
What would such a new nation look like? A nation that did not embrace Federalism or anti-federalism, Capitalism or Socialism? What type of society would we form if given the opportunity to begin again?
Let us begin by considering the common elements to every form of government known to human history. They have all provided a system of money, a military, infrastructure, civil justice, and a bureaucracy to administrate it. The more advanced a society's technology the more complex these elements became and the deeper the involvement of the government therein. So how do we provide these essentials and yet also create a new type of government that does not lend itself to corruption, authoritarianism, and ineptitude?
Perhaps we should consider how governments are organized. Throughout history, either the military has supported plutocrats or the populace has supported representatives. Every form of government tried can fit into either of those two categories. In either case, once decisions were made, it is the bureaucrats who actually work the gears. Economies, meanwhile, have functioned as either free markets or managed markets (whether by government or corporate trust). No combination of these theories has ever produced a society that was stable, safe, and equitable. The only other option tried has been anarchy, which definitely did not result in achieving our goals.
What are our goals? A stable, safe, equitable society in which individuals are free to behave as they wish as long as they hurt no one, and hunger, poverty, and classism do not exist. Is this just utopian? Is the problem that the vision of a perfect society prevents us from forming a practical society?
So let us focus on the practical. The most basic needs for a nation to exist are infrastructure, money, defense, justice system, and some sort of administrative arm to make it happen. The libertarian would argue that is all we need from a government. Many also desire a method of providing for the common good; health care, retirement, unemployment, education, and industry oversight. All of which requires more administration and more money.
Economically a nation requires a stable currency. Money was originally created as a form of universal barter, allowing people to trade without needing to possess the exact product the other person was looking for. The entrance of banks into the system began the complication of the system, as lending practices allowed the banks to become the de facto owners of property, and eventually, nations. Credit, an unstable and illusory form of currency, became the most significant form of currency in the world. The switch from real currency to fiat currency in the mid twentieth century allowed bank credit to grow economies in an unprecedented scale.
What we need is a government that must function on a balanced budget. Whose members must act within the limits of their power, in an efficient manner, without divided loyalties. A government which can provide the populace with its requests, without overstepping its bounds.
To this end I propose the following amendments to the US Constitution, these are descriptions and not intended as legal wording:
1) Republican Meritocracy – election of local members to all 3 branches of government. These representatives will in turn promote from within to the state, and in turn, to the federal government of their branch. Also having the authority to remove those representatives. Thus guaranteeing those with experience and skill acquire greater authority. (soviet)
2) Balanced Budget- no budget, at any level of government, may spend more than it has available in the coffers, or borrow against future income. (libertarian)
3) Taxes- all citizens who are not retired, unemployed, or living below the poverty level shall pay a total of 20% of their income in taxes (5% local, 5% state, 10% federal). Any additional revenue needed must be raised via a sales tax, be assigned to a specific project, and have a beginning and end date specified.
4) End the Fed- return control of the currency to the US government. This will return ownership of the US economy to the citizens. (libertarian)
5) Incorporate America- Assess the value of all federal holdings (parks, buildings, weapons, etc) and issue equal stock to all citizens at birth or naturalization. This will be private stock, only tradable among citizens. Currency will be treated as public stock. This will give real value to currency and invest citizens in their nation. Can not be connected to voting or civil rights. (libertarian?)
6) Privacy- no legislation can affect the activities of a citizen which do not involve another person. No legislation, or government activity, can be designed to affect, or observe, the activities of a citizen that are not open to public observation. Internet access portals cannot be accessed without a warrant. No activity can be deemed a crime in which all participants consent and are adults. All government departments violating this concept must be eliminated. (e.g. DEA) (libertarian)
7) General Insurance Fund- repeal SS, UC, medicare, and welfare, replace with GIF. All citizens who are retired, living below poverty level, or unemployed will be able to access GIF to subsidize food and shelter. All citizens will use GIF to pay for medical care. (socialist)
8) Anti-imperialism- no permanent military bases outside of sovereign territory. Temporary bases only to be established after declaration of war by Congress. (libertarian)
9) Anti-partisanship- no government document, including voter registration, may request information on political affiliation. No organization or individual may give money or gifts to a politician or their political campaign. No political party may finance an individual campaign. Exchanges of favors are considered bribery. Political advertisements may support a candidate or discuss an issue, they may not denigrate a candidate.
10) Term limits- no person shall hold a single office for more than 3 terms. The Presidency shall be a 1 term, 10 year office with Congress having the authority to remove a sitting President through a vote of no confidence garnering a simple majority of both houses.
11) Marketplace stability- no profit-generating plan can be put forward unless it is directly based on a real product. E.G. Ford Motors can sell stocks, but Merrill Lynch cannot sell Derivatives on Ford stocks. No loan offering institution may sell off its loans. This will control balloon markets. (Keynesian)
12) Politicians convicted of violating the Constitution will be sentenced to life in prison.
13) Environment- air and water are the property of all citizens and therefore pollution is a crime against all citizens. The federal government has the authority to regulate personal and industrial waste and production so as to protect the environment. These concerns must be balanced against the rights of personal privacy and the needs of corporate growth. (libertarian)
14) Fair markets- no legislation may be passed favoring one company or industry over another. No industry or company may use legislation or fiscal advantage to prevent another from gaining equal access to a marketplace. (capitalism)
15) Judiciary- the SCOTUS has 30 days to choose to review any legislation and executive orders on its Constitutionality after being signed by the President. The POTUS must notify SCOTUS of all legislation and executive orders signed. Once every ten years the SCOTUS must conduct a review of all legislation for contradictory and/or redundant legislation. (this would only be truly cumbersome the first time). (democratic)
16) Arms- Citizens have a right to own weapons equal to twice the number of citizens in the residence. WMD's, Bio-weapons, launchable weapons, shrapnel weapons, and auto-fire weapons are not legal for personal ownership. All weapons must be registered with the government as potential civilian militia inventory. This will create a less dangerous society.
17) Education- K-12 education will be funded federally by determining dollars per student and then allotting each school dollars per enrollment. Post secondary schools shall receive tax dollars only through scholarships or research grants. The federal government will also provide internet access to all museums, libraries, etc. to all educational institutions. This will create more equal access resources to all students. (socialist)
This would not create a utopia, but it would adapt our society to the problems and changes we have experienced over the centuries. Hopefully, it would also create a more balanced and stable society. Ultimately, creating a truly new society would mean figuring out a new economic model. However, I do not seem to have that level of intellect. Although I am not done trying. Perhaps if we actually do call for a Convention, when all the great minds of our culture are gathered together, something truly new and great can be developed.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Law, Morality, and Money vs the Pentagon
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
2.4 million American soldiers deployed to 791 bases in 39 sovereign nations, according to the DoD. These numbers do not include US states and territories or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.(1)
The US military budget is equal to 44% of the total planet’s military spending and that is troubling due to its sheer obesity alone. The 2009 military budget is over $653 billion, approximately $102 billion of which is just for maintaining the worldwide network of bases.(2)
The first question I would ask is, how is my security as an American increased by having a military base in Honduras and El Salvador? Oman and Bahrain? Spain and Portugal? Or by having over 20 bases in Germany? We have very fast planes, one base in a region should be enough to provide for American strategic interests, no?
My next question would be, what are these strategic interests? Are we afraid the Hondurans are going to launch an assault against us? Or that Luxemburg is going to be instrumental in the overthrow of our EU allies? Is a base on Aruba necessary to the defense of American borders?
Third, I would ask, in a time of economic upheaval how can we justify raising taxes and deficit spending while spending to maintain a network of bases that does nothing to protect our sovereignty?
Fourth, I would question the legality of maintaining such an empire. The Constitution has the following to say about the United Sates military, and nothing more:
Article I
Section 8….
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states,when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--
Article IV
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
According to this, the United States federal government has no authority to maintain an overseas base, to create a separate Airforce and Marine Corp, or to budget the Pentagon for more than 2 years at a time. So where is the legal authority for this entire empire?
Finally, I would question the morality of this endeavor. Every major religion and secular philosophy of the world claims peace as its highest goal. Including those most sacred to those who built this nation; Humanism, the Abrahamic faiths, Deism, Unitarianism, Romanticism, neo-classicism, and even the Native American tribal traditions. Yet, despite this lofty goal clung to in our meditations and on our soapboxes, seldom is it practiced in our halls of government.
This government, my government, in particular has succeeded in building the single largest instrument of war in the history of the world. We hold in our power the ability to destroy the world many times over. If this is not immoral then, pray tell, what is?
I do not wish to abandon our defenses to hope and good will. However, all that is necessary to defend our sovereignty is a navy and a national guard, with the air forces contained therein. If those forces were maintained only within the bounds of our sovereignty, we would have naught to fear from our enemies. We would also have several billion more dollars. Most importantly, we would not suffer from the tragedy of moral hypocrisy.
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
2.4 million American soldiers deployed to 791 bases in 39 sovereign nations, according to the DoD. These numbers do not include US states and territories or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
The US military budget is equal to 44% of the total planet’s military spending and that is troubling due to its sheer obesity alone. The 2009 military budget is over $653 billion, approximately $102 billion of which is just for maintaining the worldwide network of bases.
The first question I would ask is, how is my security as an American increased by having a military base in Honduras and El Salvador? Oman and Bahrain? Spain and Portugal? Or by having over 20 bases in Germany? We have very fast planes, one base in a region should be enough to provide for American strategic interests, no?
My next question would be, what are these strategic interests? Are we afraid the Hondurans are going to launch an assault against us? Or that Luxemburg is going to be instrumental in the overthrow of our EU allies? Is a base on Aruba necessary to the defense of American borders?
Third, I would ask, in a time of economic upheaval how can we justify raising taxes and deficit spending while spending to maintain a network of bases that does nothing to protect our sovereignty?
Fourth, I would question the legality of maintaining such an empire. The Constitution has the following to say about the United Sates military, and nothing more:
Article I
Section 8….
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states,when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--
Article IV
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
According to this, the United States federal government has no authority to maintain an overseas base, to create a separate Airforce and Marine Corp, or to budget the Pentagon for more than 2 years at a time. So where is the legal authority for this entire empire?
Finally, I would question the morality of this endeavor. Every major religion and secular philosophy of the world claims peace as its highest goal. Including those most sacred to those who built this nation; Humanism, the Abrahamic faiths, Deism, Unitarianism, Romanticism, neo-classicism, and even the Native American tribal traditions. Yet, despite this lofty goal clung to in our meditations and on our soapboxes, seldom is it practiced in our halls of government.
This government, my government, in particular has succeeded in building the single largest instrument of war in the history of the world. We hold in our power the ability to destroy the world many times over. If this is not immoral then, pray tell, what is?
I do not wish to abandon our defenses to hope and good will. However, all that is necessary to defend our sovereignty is a navy and a national guard, with the air forces contained therein. If those forces were maintained only within the bounds of our sovereignty, we would have naught to fear from our enemies. We would also have several billion more dollars. Most importantly, we would not suffer from the tragedy of moral hypocrisy.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
National Health Insurance
A Simple Solution in Our Budget
We continue to look over the brink of a fiscal crisis wondering what we should do, while a solution has been offered to us for decades: National Health Insurance. We talk of bailing out this particular industry or that, or whether to subsidize the consumer base, but with one fell swoop we can re-invigorate the entire economy. The numbers are waving their hands and screaming, “here I am”, yet we continue to drive on by blithely. What's more, this is a solution which allows us to take care of each other.
The American business and employee will pay [all numbers gathered Nov. 2008] 2009 taxes to support federal health insurance for government employees (including retirement benefits), Active Military, Veterans, Medicare, Medicaid matching funds, and SCHIP matching funds to the tune of $308,291 Billion (whitehouse.gov/omb). In addition, we will pay the combined fifty states $306,541 Billion towards SCHIP and Medicaid (statehealthfacts.org). This adds up to $614,823 Billion dollars in taxpayer funded, government health insurance.
At the same time, those very same taxpayers, will pay $878,800 Billion in private health care expenditures (cms.hhs.gov). (On a personal note, I find it somewhat aggravating that I support the cost of public officials’ insurance, yet they don’t support mine.)
For a grand total of 1 Trillion 493 Billion 632 Million Dollars spent, by the people who are successfully building America, on both their own and other people’s health insurance.
If you ask any businessperson what their largest overhead costs are, they will tell you insurance and payroll. Since we don’t want to relieve the cost of payroll, perhaps we can relieve the cost of insurance. If we can remove health insurance costs from the entire manufacturing base (automakers), retail base (Sharper Image, Footlocker), and the credit industry (mortgages, credit cards) they will suddenly find themselves with a significant increase in operating capital; an across the board bailout.
If we were to relieve individual consumers of their monthly paycheck insurance premiums and decrease (not remove) their tax debt on government insurance, the consumer base would find itself with more money to spend. This would help every industry. If you could choose between paying both an insurance premium and insurance tax or just one, lesser, insurance tax, what you choose?
How to accomplish this seeming panacea? With a reallocation of funds we have already decided to spend. We have over $614 Billion already allocated for the combined government insurance plans add to that $400 Billion reallocated from the most recent bailout, and we have over 1 Trillion dollars to buy the health insurance industry. We can keep nearly everyone in the industry employed in the new single payer insurance, non-profit corporation. Combine the executive boards into one board, and appoint an undersecretary to the Secretary of the Treasury to operate as a CFO who reports to Congress quarterly. We can eliminate all the other government health insurance plans and provide insurance to every American from birth to death.
We spend over $ 4 Trillion dollars in combined retail every year, which works out to be approximately $13,000 per capita (uscensus.gov). A 10% sales tax will bring in over $400 Billion dollars per year or a little over One Hundred Dollars per household per month for operating costs and guarantee that everyone pays their fair share (including illegal aliens and tourists). This may seem like more than some of you are currently paying to your private health care costs, but when you factor in the taxes for the government plans it is a significant savings. Decreasing operating costs for corporations will also allow for decreases in prices and/or increases in wages. Thus eliminating the private insurance premiums and the taxes for government employee health benefits and entitlements.
I’m sure someone has noticed that $400 Billion from a sales tax does not equal the 1.4 trillion we are expecting to spend this year. However, once we remove the multiple layers of redundancy, provide preventative medicine to everyone, and move from profit to non-profit we will see a dramatic reduction in costs.
I know some will argue that this is socialism, but we build roads and communication networks because the marketplace needs them to flourish. Well, if we don’t do this then our marketplace may collapse; therefore the survival of American capitalism requires this be done. Further, not only will this plan not put our grandchildren into debt, it will actually benefit them with a more prosperous country.
JD Adler
Citizen, USA
We continue to look over the brink of a fiscal crisis wondering what we should do, while a solution has been offered to us for decades: National Health Insurance. We talk of bailing out this particular industry or that, or whether to subsidize the consumer base, but with one fell swoop we can re-invigorate the entire economy. The numbers are waving their hands and screaming, “here I am”, yet we continue to drive on by blithely. What's more, this is a solution which allows us to take care of each other.
The American business and employee will pay [all numbers gathered Nov. 2008] 2009 taxes to support federal health insurance for government employees (including retirement benefits), Active Military, Veterans, Medicare, Medicaid matching funds, and SCHIP matching funds to the tune of $308,291 Billion (whitehouse.gov/omb). In addition, we will pay the combined fifty states $306,541 Billion towards SCHIP and Medicaid (statehealthfacts.org). This adds up to $614,823 Billion dollars in taxpayer funded, government health insurance.
At the same time, those very same taxpayers, will pay $878,800 Billion in private health care expenditures (cms.hhs.gov). (On a personal note, I find it somewhat aggravating that I support the cost of public officials’ insurance, yet they don’t support mine.)
For a grand total of 1 Trillion 493 Billion 632 Million Dollars spent, by the people who are successfully building America, on both their own and other people’s health insurance.
If you ask any businessperson what their largest overhead costs are, they will tell you insurance and payroll. Since we don’t want to relieve the cost of payroll, perhaps we can relieve the cost of insurance. If we can remove health insurance costs from the entire manufacturing base (automakers), retail base (Sharper Image, Footlocker), and the credit industry (mortgages, credit cards) they will suddenly find themselves with a significant increase in operating capital; an across the board bailout.
If we were to relieve individual consumers of their monthly paycheck insurance premiums and decrease (not remove) their tax debt on government insurance, the consumer base would find itself with more money to spend. This would help every industry. If you could choose between paying both an insurance premium and insurance tax or just one, lesser, insurance tax, what you choose?
How to accomplish this seeming panacea? With a reallocation of funds we have already decided to spend. We have over $614 Billion already allocated for the combined government insurance plans add to that $400 Billion reallocated from the most recent bailout, and we have over 1 Trillion dollars to buy the health insurance industry. We can keep nearly everyone in the industry employed in the new single payer insurance, non-profit corporation. Combine the executive boards into one board, and appoint an undersecretary to the Secretary of the Treasury to operate as a CFO who reports to Congress quarterly. We can eliminate all the other government health insurance plans and provide insurance to every American from birth to death.
We spend over $ 4 Trillion dollars in combined retail every year, which works out to be approximately $13,000 per capita (uscensus.gov). A 10% sales tax will bring in over $400 Billion dollars per year or a little over One Hundred Dollars per household per month for operating costs and guarantee that everyone pays their fair share (including illegal aliens and tourists). This may seem like more than some of you are currently paying to your private health care costs, but when you factor in the taxes for the government plans it is a significant savings. Decreasing operating costs for corporations will also allow for decreases in prices and/or increases in wages. Thus eliminating the private insurance premiums and the taxes for government employee health benefits and entitlements.
I’m sure someone has noticed that $400 Billion from a sales tax does not equal the 1.4 trillion we are expecting to spend this year. However, once we remove the multiple layers of redundancy, provide preventative medicine to everyone, and move from profit to non-profit we will see a dramatic reduction in costs.
I know some will argue that this is socialism, but we build roads and communication networks because the marketplace needs them to flourish. Well, if we don’t do this then our marketplace may collapse; therefore the survival of American capitalism requires this be done. Further, not only will this plan not put our grandchildren into debt, it will actually benefit them with a more prosperous country.
JD Adler
Citizen, USA
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Heroes of Peace Vol. 5
Joshua son of Joseph of Nazareth AKA Jesus Christ
Born approx. 6-4 BCE, Bethlehem, died approx 26-35 CE, Jerusalem, Israel, subject nation of the Republic of Rome
The purpose of this article is not to debate the possible divinity of the person known commonly as Jesus Christ. Nor is it to discuss the actions of his followers over the centuries. The sole purpose of this article is to discuss the words attributed to him and what they would mean if implemented in the world. For I would argue that if believers in other faiths and atheists were to substitute their concepts of the true nature of the universe for those of the Trinity and Heaven, the wisdom of his words will remain. I have chosen this particular moment in time to reflect on these words due to the current transition in our culture. As we move form a governing philosophy of market based priorities to one of social priorities, the ideals of the most influential icon in western culture seem particularly poignant.
Clearly there is not time here to discuss the entire Gospels. So I shall focus on the particular set of teachings that I feel embodies his ideals; the Sermon on the Mount.
Beginning with Beatitudes: Jesus opens by advising his audience to first attend to their personal enlightenment and then approach the world with benevolence. He identifies the type of person who is blessed (happy) as someone who strives to improve themselves always (3,6,10), someone who empathizes with the plight of others (4,7), someone who not only does not harm others but tries to help (5,9), and someone who is true to their beliefs even when it puts them at odds with the community around them (8,11). In all of these he claims that behaving in this manner will result in rewards of personal fulfillment. Throughout the world, this is a common theme in world philosophies; that by being true to yourself and good to each other one will be on the path to Heaven, Nirvana, Enlightenment, etc. Even among the secular teachings of the world the concepts of personal integrity and interpersonal benevolence have always been taught as the signs of a good and wise person. So too has this long been a theme of our storytelling dating to ancient oral tradition, with heroes embodying these traits and villains being malevolent hypocrites. Clearly there is recognition across cultures of the basic truths of these concepts.
Jesus then enters the main text of his sermon, in which he further develops the point.
Beginning Matthew 5 by reminding the audience that they are the heart and soul of the society in which they live. Neither Kings nor Prophets have half the value of the average person whose daily actions determine the flavor of society. He continues to say that the ideals of their culture do not need to be destroyed for his teachings to manifest, but rather his teachings are just asking them to live up to the ideals of their culture.
Then the specifics begin. A series of commentaries on murder, fidelity, oaths and enemies all focus on the mentality of the individual. One must not hold anger, hostility, and betrayal in your heart. These emotions interfere with happiness and ultimately lead to negative actions. One’s word, thoughts, and actions must be true to each other else the result is a divided person, which cannot be a happy person. Even those who would harm you should be treated well, for you would want them to treat you well and you must remain true to that ideal to be whole. The first step is to think honorably.
Matthew 6 and 7 contain several messages in a seemingly random presentation.
One message is an admonishment against hubris and hypocrisy. Reminding the audience that prayer, charity, and fasting are not for public consumption but between the practitioner and their creator alone. That good works are done for the sake of the good done, not for praise from your neighbors. Returning, once more, to the theme of actions and intent both being important. Acting honorably is it’s own reward.
A second message is about materialism. Jesus uses very little metaphor here, but directly and severely directs his audience to forgo the pursuit of wealth. He contends that attempting to have more than what you need in materials (greed) interferes with getting what you need in the spirit (happiness). He also makes it clear that there is no way to attempt to pursue both for they create oppositional forces in the mind and soul. You cannot buy honor, you can only earn it.
Jesus dedicates several paragraphs, as well as elements of most of the others, to the theme of pursuing this ideal philosophy. He assures the listener that they will not find it easy or easily. That the search for the short, swift, and comfortable path is bound to lead them into corruption and, ultimately, unhappiness. He then assures them that effort is worthwhile because a person whose character is built upon the strong foundation of integrity and righteousness will find that happiness is far superior to gratification. More importantly, a world of such people will be paradise. Earning honor brings contentment.
Perhaps the most beautiful bit of metaphor is:
"The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”
The lamp is your soul or superego, through which you perceive the world. If you view the world from a point of view of integrity and benevolence then your life will be good, otherwise…
In the East this is known as Karma.
Our culture has long been one of greed, hypocrisy, adversarialism, and war. We praise the conquerors and mock those who call for peace. The leaders of our society are required to have either great wealth or great military accomplishments. When someone suggests that perhaps diplomacy would be better than attack, we call them weak. When someone suggests we should make helping others the goal of our success, we call them thieves. The result has been continuous cycles of strife and an ever-present underclass that suffers so that others might be more comfortable.
What would happen if we embraced the philosophical points that Jesus made? If we forgave our enemies when they say hateful things for the saying does me no harm. If, instead of dedicating our resources to putting military bases everywhere in the world, we used that money to help those who were less fortunate than us? If we did not judge others for acting or believing differently than us, but simply allowed them to be and let them see by our example what our path leads towards? Rather than lashing out with hostility when politicians offered a different viewpoint, we gave thoughtful consideration to their ideas and debated the merits? What would happen if we behaved according to these ideals which all of the religions and philosophies of the world claim to hold true? What if we were a people of integrity and generosity, instead of a people who jealously guarded our possessions? What if we did not make the highest achievement of our land the attainment of material wealth, but instead the improvement of the human condition?
For popularizing in the western world a view that love, mercy, forgiveness, and peace are better than hostility, judgment, vengeance, and war Jesus of Nazareth is truly a Hero of Peace.
Born approx. 6-4 BCE, Bethlehem, died approx 26-35 CE, Jerusalem, Israel, subject nation of the Republic of Rome
The purpose of this article is not to debate the possible divinity of the person known commonly as Jesus Christ. Nor is it to discuss the actions of his followers over the centuries. The sole purpose of this article is to discuss the words attributed to him and what they would mean if implemented in the world. For I would argue that if believers in other faiths and atheists were to substitute their concepts of the true nature of the universe for those of the Trinity and Heaven, the wisdom of his words will remain. I have chosen this particular moment in time to reflect on these words due to the current transition in our culture. As we move form a governing philosophy of market based priorities to one of social priorities, the ideals of the most influential icon in western culture seem particularly poignant.
Clearly there is not time here to discuss the entire Gospels. So I shall focus on the particular set of teachings that I feel embodies his ideals; the Sermon on the Mount.
Beginning with Beatitudes: Jesus opens by advising his audience to first attend to their personal enlightenment and then approach the world with benevolence. He identifies the type of person who is blessed (happy) as someone who strives to improve themselves always (3,6,10), someone who empathizes with the plight of others (4,7), someone who not only does not harm others but tries to help (5,9), and someone who is true to their beliefs even when it puts them at odds with the community around them (8,11). In all of these he claims that behaving in this manner will result in rewards of personal fulfillment. Throughout the world, this is a common theme in world philosophies; that by being true to yourself and good to each other one will be on the path to Heaven, Nirvana, Enlightenment, etc. Even among the secular teachings of the world the concepts of personal integrity and interpersonal benevolence have always been taught as the signs of a good and wise person. So too has this long been a theme of our storytelling dating to ancient oral tradition, with heroes embodying these traits and villains being malevolent hypocrites. Clearly there is recognition across cultures of the basic truths of these concepts.
Jesus then enters the main text of his sermon, in which he further develops the point.
Beginning Matthew 5 by reminding the audience that they are the heart and soul of the society in which they live. Neither Kings nor Prophets have half the value of the average person whose daily actions determine the flavor of society. He continues to say that the ideals of their culture do not need to be destroyed for his teachings to manifest, but rather his teachings are just asking them to live up to the ideals of their culture.
Then the specifics begin. A series of commentaries on murder, fidelity, oaths and enemies all focus on the mentality of the individual. One must not hold anger, hostility, and betrayal in your heart. These emotions interfere with happiness and ultimately lead to negative actions. One’s word, thoughts, and actions must be true to each other else the result is a divided person, which cannot be a happy person. Even those who would harm you should be treated well, for you would want them to treat you well and you must remain true to that ideal to be whole. The first step is to think honorably.
Matthew 6 and 7 contain several messages in a seemingly random presentation.
One message is an admonishment against hubris and hypocrisy. Reminding the audience that prayer, charity, and fasting are not for public consumption but between the practitioner and their creator alone. That good works are done for the sake of the good done, not for praise from your neighbors. Returning, once more, to the theme of actions and intent both being important. Acting honorably is it’s own reward.
A second message is about materialism. Jesus uses very little metaphor here, but directly and severely directs his audience to forgo the pursuit of wealth. He contends that attempting to have more than what you need in materials (greed) interferes with getting what you need in the spirit (happiness). He also makes it clear that there is no way to attempt to pursue both for they create oppositional forces in the mind and soul. You cannot buy honor, you can only earn it.
Jesus dedicates several paragraphs, as well as elements of most of the others, to the theme of pursuing this ideal philosophy. He assures the listener that they will not find it easy or easily. That the search for the short, swift, and comfortable path is bound to lead them into corruption and, ultimately, unhappiness. He then assures them that effort is worthwhile because a person whose character is built upon the strong foundation of integrity and righteousness will find that happiness is far superior to gratification. More importantly, a world of such people will be paradise. Earning honor brings contentment.
Perhaps the most beautiful bit of metaphor is:
"The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”
The lamp is your soul or superego, through which you perceive the world. If you view the world from a point of view of integrity and benevolence then your life will be good, otherwise…
In the East this is known as Karma.
Our culture has long been one of greed, hypocrisy, adversarialism, and war. We praise the conquerors and mock those who call for peace. The leaders of our society are required to have either great wealth or great military accomplishments. When someone suggests that perhaps diplomacy would be better than attack, we call them weak. When someone suggests we should make helping others the goal of our success, we call them thieves. The result has been continuous cycles of strife and an ever-present underclass that suffers so that others might be more comfortable.
What would happen if we embraced the philosophical points that Jesus made? If we forgave our enemies when they say hateful things for the saying does me no harm. If, instead of dedicating our resources to putting military bases everywhere in the world, we used that money to help those who were less fortunate than us? If we did not judge others for acting or believing differently than us, but simply allowed them to be and let them see by our example what our path leads towards? Rather than lashing out with hostility when politicians offered a different viewpoint, we gave thoughtful consideration to their ideas and debated the merits? What would happen if we behaved according to these ideals which all of the religions and philosophies of the world claim to hold true? What if we were a people of integrity and generosity, instead of a people who jealously guarded our possessions? What if we did not make the highest achievement of our land the attainment of material wealth, but instead the improvement of the human condition?
For popularizing in the western world a view that love, mercy, forgiveness, and peace are better than hostility, judgment, vengeance, and war Jesus of Nazareth is truly a Hero of Peace.
Friday, November 14, 2008
A Natural History of Peace by Robert M. Sapolsky
Summary: Humans like to think that they are unique, but the study of other primates has called into question the exceptionalism of our species. So what does primatology have to say about war and peace? Contrary to what was believed just a few decades ago, humans are not "killer apes" destined for violent conflict, but can make their own history.
Robert M. Sapolsky is John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor of Biological Sciences and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University. His most recent book is "Monkeyluv: And Other Essays on Our Lives as Animals."
From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2006
Article Conclusion
Is it possible to achieve the cooperative advantages of a small group without having the group reflexively view outsiders as the Other? One way is through trade. Voluntary economic exchanges not only produce profits; they can also reduce social friction -- as the macaques demonstrated by being more likely to reconcile with a valued partner in food acquisition.
Another way is through a fission-fusion social structure, in which the boundaries between groups are not absolute and impermeable. The model here is not the multilevel society of the hamadryas baboons, both because their basic social unit of the harem is despotic and because their fusion consists of nothing more than lots of animals occasionally coming together to utilize a resource peacefully. Human hunter-gatherers are a better example to follow, in that their small bands often merge, split, or exchange members for a while, with such fluidity helping to solve not only environmental resource problems but social problems as well. The result is that instead of the all-or-nothing world of male chimps, in which there is only one's own group and the enemy, hunter-gatherers can enjoy gradations of familiarity and cooperation stretching over large areas.
The interactions among hunter-gatherers resemble those of other networks, where there are individual nodes (in this case, small groups) and where the majority of interactions between the nodes are local ones, with the frequency of interactions dropping off as a function of distance. Mathematicians have shown that when the ratios among short-, middle-, and long-distance interactions are optimal, networks are robust: they are dominated by highly cooperative clusters of local interactions, but they also retain the potential for less frequent, long-distance communication and coordination.
Optimizing the fission-fusion interactions of hunter-gatherer networks is easy: cooperate within the band; schedule frequent joint hunts with the next band over; have occasional hunts with bands somewhat farther out; have a legend of a single shared hunt with a mythic band at the end of the earth. Optimizing the fission-fusion interactions in contemporary human networks is vastly harder, but the principles are the same.
In exploring these subjects, one often encounters a pessimism built around the notion that humans, as primates, are hard-wired for xenophobia. Some brain-imaging studies have appeared to support this view in a particularly discouraging way. There is a structure deep inside the brain called the amygdala, which plays a key role in fear and aggression, and experiments have shown that when subjects are presented with a face of someone from a different race, the amygdala gets metabolically active -- aroused, alert, ready for action. This happens even when the face is presented "subliminally," which is to say, so rapidly that the subject does not consciously see it.
More recent studies, however, should mitigate this pessimism. Test a person who has a lot of experience with people of different races, and the amygdala does not activate. Or, as in a wonderful experiment by Susan Fiske, of Princeton University, subtly bias the subject beforehand to think of people as individuals rather than as members of a group, and the amygdala does not budge. Humans may be hard-wired to get edgy around the Other, but our views on who falls into that category are decidedly malleable.
In the early 1960s, a rising star of primatology, Irven DeVore, of Harvard University, published the first general overview of the subject. Discussing his own specialty, savanna baboons, he wrote that they "have acquired an aggressive temperament as a defense against predators, and aggressiveness cannot be turned on and off like a faucet. It is an integral part of the monkeys' personalities, so deeply rooted that it makes them potential aggressors in every situation." Thus the savanna baboon became, literally, a textbook example of life in an aggressive, highly stratified, male-dominated society. Yet within a few years, members of the species demonstrated enough behavioral plasticity to transform a society of theirs into a baboon utopia.
The first half of the twentieth century was drenched in the blood spilled by German and Japanese aggression, yet only a few decades later it is hard to think of two countries more pacific. Sweden spent the seventeenth century rampaging through Europe, yet it is now an icon of nurturing tranquility. Humans have invented the small nomadic band and the continental megastate, and have demonstrated a flexibility whereby uprooted descendants of the former can function effectively in the latter. We lack the type of physiology or anatomy that in other mammals determine their mating system, and have come up with societies based on monogamy, polygyny, and polyandry. And we have fashioned some religions in which violent acts are the entrée to paradise and other religions in which the same acts consign one to hell. Is a world of peacefully coexisting human Forest Troops possible? Anyone who says, "No, it is beyond our nature," knows too little about primates, including ourselves.
Robert M. Sapolsky is John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor of Biological Sciences and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University. His most recent book is "Monkeyluv: And Other Essays on Our Lives as Animals."
From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2006
Article Conclusion
Is it possible to achieve the cooperative advantages of a small group without having the group reflexively view outsiders as the Other? One way is through trade. Voluntary economic exchanges not only produce profits; they can also reduce social friction -- as the macaques demonstrated by being more likely to reconcile with a valued partner in food acquisition.
Another way is through a fission-fusion social structure, in which the boundaries between groups are not absolute and impermeable. The model here is not the multilevel society of the hamadryas baboons, both because their basic social unit of the harem is despotic and because their fusion consists of nothing more than lots of animals occasionally coming together to utilize a resource peacefully. Human hunter-gatherers are a better example to follow, in that their small bands often merge, split, or exchange members for a while, with such fluidity helping to solve not only environmental resource problems but social problems as well. The result is that instead of the all-or-nothing world of male chimps, in which there is only one's own group and the enemy, hunter-gatherers can enjoy gradations of familiarity and cooperation stretching over large areas.
The interactions among hunter-gatherers resemble those of other networks, where there are individual nodes (in this case, small groups) and where the majority of interactions between the nodes are local ones, with the frequency of interactions dropping off as a function of distance. Mathematicians have shown that when the ratios among short-, middle-, and long-distance interactions are optimal, networks are robust: they are dominated by highly cooperative clusters of local interactions, but they also retain the potential for less frequent, long-distance communication and coordination.
Optimizing the fission-fusion interactions of hunter-gatherer networks is easy: cooperate within the band; schedule frequent joint hunts with the next band over; have occasional hunts with bands somewhat farther out; have a legend of a single shared hunt with a mythic band at the end of the earth. Optimizing the fission-fusion interactions in contemporary human networks is vastly harder, but the principles are the same.
In exploring these subjects, one often encounters a pessimism built around the notion that humans, as primates, are hard-wired for xenophobia. Some brain-imaging studies have appeared to support this view in a particularly discouraging way. There is a structure deep inside the brain called the amygdala, which plays a key role in fear and aggression, and experiments have shown that when subjects are presented with a face of someone from a different race, the amygdala gets metabolically active -- aroused, alert, ready for action. This happens even when the face is presented "subliminally," which is to say, so rapidly that the subject does not consciously see it.
More recent studies, however, should mitigate this pessimism. Test a person who has a lot of experience with people of different races, and the amygdala does not activate. Or, as in a wonderful experiment by Susan Fiske, of Princeton University, subtly bias the subject beforehand to think of people as individuals rather than as members of a group, and the amygdala does not budge. Humans may be hard-wired to get edgy around the Other, but our views on who falls into that category are decidedly malleable.
In the early 1960s, a rising star of primatology, Irven DeVore, of Harvard University, published the first general overview of the subject. Discussing his own specialty, savanna baboons, he wrote that they "have acquired an aggressive temperament as a defense against predators, and aggressiveness cannot be turned on and off like a faucet. It is an integral part of the monkeys' personalities, so deeply rooted that it makes them potential aggressors in every situation." Thus the savanna baboon became, literally, a textbook example of life in an aggressive, highly stratified, male-dominated society. Yet within a few years, members of the species demonstrated enough behavioral plasticity to transform a society of theirs into a baboon utopia.
The first half of the twentieth century was drenched in the blood spilled by German and Japanese aggression, yet only a few decades later it is hard to think of two countries more pacific. Sweden spent the seventeenth century rampaging through Europe, yet it is now an icon of nurturing tranquility. Humans have invented the small nomadic band and the continental megastate, and have demonstrated a flexibility whereby uprooted descendants of the former can function effectively in the latter. We lack the type of physiology or anatomy that in other mammals determine their mating system, and have come up with societies based on monogamy, polygyny, and polyandry. And we have fashioned some religions in which violent acts are the entrée to paradise and other religions in which the same acts consign one to hell. Is a world of peacefully coexisting human Forest Troops possible? Anyone who says, "No, it is beyond our nature," knows too little about primates, including ourselves.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Department of Peace
In September of 2005 and February of 2007 bills were introduced into the Senate and House, respectively, proposing a cabinet level Department of Peace (1). There is, of course, a great deal of political jargon in the bills, but they boil down to creating a Secretary of Peace who advises the President on policies designed to make American life more peaceful.
I find the idea compelling. We have people who advise the leader of our nation on war, security, economics, crime prevention/punishment, education, and more. Yet nowhere among the advisors is someone tasked with the mission of designing a strategy that would coordinate these various efforts towards increasing Peace. There is no one whose goal is to aid the President in providing Americans an environment most conducive to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
As we enter this administrative era of “hope and change” is it too much to hope for that we would change from a war footing to a peace plan? Is it really to the benefit of our citizenry for our government to prosecute a war on drugs against us? A war on poverty against us? A war for oil that sends poor children to kill poor children so that wealthy men may become wealthier still? When do we stop trying to fight and control everyone and start trying to organize a cooperative effort to live together respectfully? Is that not the goal of the social contract?
Every moral code in the world champions peace. Whenever we wish to demonize someone we accuse them of being hostile to security/stability/peace. Judaism claims that when the Messiah (savior) comes “swords will be beaten into plow shares and spears into pruning hooks”. Christianity worships the ‘God of Peace’. Defenders of Islam state that terrorists are extremists and that theirs is a religion of Peace. The Hindus believe that enlightenment comes when one is at Peace with one’s self and the surrounding world. Every system of laws makes citizens harming each other illegal, and those that differentiate the value of a citizen do so by their level of protection from harm.
So, if we nearly universally agree that Peace is the best way to behave, why do we not advise our leaders on how to best pursue it? Why are we willing to put our resources into the best strategies for war, but not the best strategies for Peace? And why is it considered silly/weak/foolish/naive to propose pursuing Peace? Should we not be putting resources into pursuing the one moral imperative we all agree on?
We know that societies that trade with each other rarely war with each other. We know that education decreases the likelihood of violence in individuals. We know that poverty increases the likelihood of violence in individuals and societies. We know that people who have trouble controlling their hostility can be taught to manage their passions. We know that when governments attempt to dominate their populace the probability of violent revolution increases.
If we have knowledge on what causes violence to increase or decrease, should we not be advising our leaders on how best to apply this information to their policies so that we may have a more peaceful nation?
If you feel that Peace is a more worthy goal than war, then please contact your Representatives to the next, 111th Congress and demand a Depart of Peace.
Thank you and may Peace be yours.
JD Adler
Citizen
110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 808 To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 5, 2007
(1) http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/278/23/
The Department of Peace gains ground
By Terri Mansfield
Make no mistake about it — the Department of Peace (DOP) is not an anti-military movement but rather a complement to it. Many members of this movement are in or retired from the military. Their most staunch supporters are found in the Pentagon. It is their hope that someday a fifth service academy; the Peace Academy, will become a reality along with West Point, the Naval Academy, Coast Guard Academy and the Air Force Academy.
http://www.azdopcampaign.org/DP_NOV-DEC_05_Pgs_91-94.pdf
Department of Peace Bill Has Bipartisan Support in Congress
Washington, DC – HR 808, the proposed legislation to create a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence, now has bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives. Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland joined 69 Democrats to support HR 808. He is currently the second Maryland Congressman cosponsoring the legislation, joining Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings.
http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/569/155/
Progressives and Conservatives for Dept. of Peace
by Matthew Albracht
Department of Peace is no new idea. George Washington was one of the first people to declare how important a more strategic effort for peace should be. More specifically, he felt our government should establish a Peace Academy, much like the military services academy. A Peace Academy is one of the core components to the DoP legislation. It would train students to become conflict specialists, to go to communities around our nation and the world to help ameliorate violence before it gets out of control.
http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/62/156/
I find the idea compelling. We have people who advise the leader of our nation on war, security, economics, crime prevention/punishment, education, and more. Yet nowhere among the advisors is someone tasked with the mission of designing a strategy that would coordinate these various efforts towards increasing Peace. There is no one whose goal is to aid the President in providing Americans an environment most conducive to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
As we enter this administrative era of “hope and change” is it too much to hope for that we would change from a war footing to a peace plan? Is it really to the benefit of our citizenry for our government to prosecute a war on drugs against us? A war on poverty against us? A war for oil that sends poor children to kill poor children so that wealthy men may become wealthier still? When do we stop trying to fight and control everyone and start trying to organize a cooperative effort to live together respectfully? Is that not the goal of the social contract?
Every moral code in the world champions peace. Whenever we wish to demonize someone we accuse them of being hostile to security/stability/peace. Judaism claims that when the Messiah (savior) comes “swords will be beaten into plow shares and spears into pruning hooks”. Christianity worships the ‘God of Peace’. Defenders of Islam state that terrorists are extremists and that theirs is a religion of Peace. The Hindus believe that enlightenment comes when one is at Peace with one’s self and the surrounding world. Every system of laws makes citizens harming each other illegal, and those that differentiate the value of a citizen do so by their level of protection from harm.
So, if we nearly universally agree that Peace is the best way to behave, why do we not advise our leaders on how to best pursue it? Why are we willing to put our resources into the best strategies for war, but not the best strategies for Peace? And why is it considered silly/weak/foolish/naive to propose pursuing Peace? Should we not be putting resources into pursuing the one moral imperative we all agree on?
We know that societies that trade with each other rarely war with each other. We know that education decreases the likelihood of violence in individuals. We know that poverty increases the likelihood of violence in individuals and societies. We know that people who have trouble controlling their hostility can be taught to manage their passions. We know that when governments attempt to dominate their populace the probability of violent revolution increases.
If we have knowledge on what causes violence to increase or decrease, should we not be advising our leaders on how best to apply this information to their policies so that we may have a more peaceful nation?
If you feel that Peace is a more worthy goal than war, then please contact your Representatives to the next, 111th Congress and demand a Depart of Peace.
Thank you and may Peace be yours.
JD Adler
Citizen
110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 808 To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 5, 2007
(1) http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/278/23/
The Department of Peace gains ground
By Terri Mansfield
Make no mistake about it — the Department of Peace (DOP) is not an anti-military movement but rather a complement to it. Many members of this movement are in or retired from the military. Their most staunch supporters are found in the Pentagon. It is their hope that someday a fifth service academy; the Peace Academy, will become a reality along with West Point, the Naval Academy, Coast Guard Academy and the Air Force Academy.
http://www.azdopcampaign.org/DP_NOV-DEC_05_Pgs_91-94.pdf
Department of Peace Bill Has Bipartisan Support in Congress
Washington, DC – HR 808, the proposed legislation to create a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence, now has bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives. Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland joined 69 Democrats to support HR 808. He is currently the second Maryland Congressman cosponsoring the legislation, joining Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings.
http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/569/155/
Progressives and Conservatives for Dept. of Peace
by Matthew Albracht
Department of Peace is no new idea. George Washington was one of the first people to declare how important a more strategic effort for peace should be. More specifically, he felt our government should establish a Peace Academy, much like the military services academy. A Peace Academy is one of the core components to the DoP legislation. It would train students to become conflict specialists, to go to communities around our nation and the world to help ameliorate violence before it gets out of control.
http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/62/156/
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Heroes of Peace, Volume 4
His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is both the head of state and the spiritual leader of Tibet. He was born on 6 July 1935, to a farming family, in a small hamlet located in Taktser, Amdo, northeastern Tibet. At the age of two the child, who was named Lhamo Dhondup at that time was recognized as the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso. The Dalai Lamas are believed to be manifestations of Avalokiteshvara or Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion and patron saint of Tibet. Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who have postponed their own nirvana and chosen to take rebirth in order to serve humanity.
http://www.dalailama.com/
Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a lecture given by the Dalai Lama at Stabler Arena, Bethlehem, PA. Before I comment on what he had to say, I wish to offer a few caveats to the reader so that they understand my perspective. I have studied Buddhism and other world religions more than most, but I certainly could not be considered a Buddhist or a theologian. The philosophies of Buddhism are extremely complex and hotly debated among even the most devout of followers. So, to suggest I have a full understanding of what I heard over the course of two, 2 hour, sessions would be erroneous. I shall, however, do my best to relate, in my words, what I heard. Hopefully, this will come across accurately and communicate why I believe the Dalai Lama to be qualified as a Hero of Peace.
The Dalai Lama himself is a very happy man. He smiles a great deal. Tells jokes about philosophy, life, people, etc. which had the audience laughing quite often. He sat, cross-legged, upon a raised, throne-like chair which was hand painted with flowers and sun images. Behind him hung a large tapestry imprinted with an image of the Buddha. He was quite relaxed with himself, often pausing to scratch or stretch without any sign of self consciousness. Despite having to often revert to Tibetan and speak through a translator, his relaxed style of speech was compelling. He spoke on faith, suffering, and true knowledge.
On faith: He reiterated throughout the day that one should adhere to the faith/philosophy which is appropriate for you. Usually this is the one taught to you by your parents. If however, this does not work for you and you find yourself searching for another till you find something else that does work, that is fine as well. He spoke about all the worlds religions and how, at the core, they teach the same concepts; be humble, be good to each other, be charitable, be honorable, etc.
At one point while discussing faith he began to discuss how to use faith to improve one's own life. I felt this was one of the most useful concepts of the day. He stated that one should first determine what you believe. Then, each morning one should determine to implement what you believe. Then, at the end of each day, you should review your actions to see if you acted according to your beliefs. Where you did, you should rejoice and reinforce this behavior. Where you discover actions contrary to your stated beliefs, you should 'cultivate remorse and determine to change' these actions. In this way you will, slowly, over time, improve yourself as a person. He took time here to reinforce the idea that this will take time to achieve.
On Suffering: This subject is far more complex. At one point he connected suffering to ignorance. Which led to a discussion on ignorance, not as a lack of knowledge but an almost intentional self deceit of the true nature of life. He stated that as long as you do not understand the causes of your suffering all of your prayers/meditations are no more than wishes. That suffering as a fact exists because this reality we live in is conditioned for Karma. So that our actions determine our suffering. Ignorance of this clearly would put us onto a path of making bad choices.
He also stated that it is has been proven scientifically that when one sees others suffering the portions of the mind which control action are stimulated, but when one suffers personally, the portions which control fear are stimulated. He felt that this confirmed the philosophy that helping others requires compassion and courage while wallowing in your own suffering leads to fear which is a vicious cycle. Which further developed the theme that ignorance of our true situation is what feeds our suffering and 'binds us to Somsara'. Somsara being this material world of unenlightened suffering.
He spoke on the solutions offered in Buddhist, and other, teachings which provide paths to solve specific types of suffering (e.g. curing anger with pleasant thoughts) and said that while these do provide specific help. they do not provide a general solution. Only wisdom can do that.
True Knowledge:Which brings us to the topic of true knowledge. The area of which I probably have the least understanding, but will do my best to relate his teachings.
At one point he answered three questions about whether or not there was a beginning or end to the universe or the self. This was an extensive lecture in itself, so forgive the extreme vagueness of my overview. He said the reason Buddhism rejects an intelligent designer or a big bang from nothing has to do with causality. If there is an ID, a permanent cause, then it should have a permanent result. Yet this is not true the universe is clearly impermanent and transient. If there is a BB then we have a effect without a cause, which is problematic.
So Buddhism teaches (if I understand) that there is a mind/body aggregate that is continual. Both the physical and metaphysical are a one continuous thing which is in a never ending cycle of changing of form. That these are connected by the 12 Dependent Origins (a lecture of its own) not one singular origin.
The true nature of life is impermanence and transience. The purpose of life is to live in community, being altruistic. That the Dharma is a freedom from desire and participation in a community of practitioners. That attainment of Buddahood requires (among other things I presume) 'a fundamental aspiration for the welfare of all until the end of space/time'.
So this is what I took away from the lecture. I hope I related it properly. I hope you learned something from it. I do not know whether there is such a thing as Nirvana or Karma, but I do know that if one attempts to practice what you believe in and examine yourself for things you find worth correcting, you will become a better person. I believe that if all people strove to be altruistic the world would be better off.
I also believe that as the Dalai Lama is a world leader who preaches peace, altruism, and an end to suffering without demanding you believe what he believes he truly is Hero of Peace, worthy of our respect and admiration.
Thank you,
Peace
http://www.dalailama.com/
Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a lecture given by the Dalai Lama at Stabler Arena, Bethlehem, PA. Before I comment on what he had to say, I wish to offer a few caveats to the reader so that they understand my perspective. I have studied Buddhism and other world religions more than most, but I certainly could not be considered a Buddhist or a theologian. The philosophies of Buddhism are extremely complex and hotly debated among even the most devout of followers. So, to suggest I have a full understanding of what I heard over the course of two, 2 hour, sessions would be erroneous. I shall, however, do my best to relate, in my words, what I heard. Hopefully, this will come across accurately and communicate why I believe the Dalai Lama to be qualified as a Hero of Peace.
The Dalai Lama himself is a very happy man. He smiles a great deal. Tells jokes about philosophy, life, people, etc. which had the audience laughing quite often. He sat, cross-legged, upon a raised, throne-like chair which was hand painted with flowers and sun images. Behind him hung a large tapestry imprinted with an image of the Buddha. He was quite relaxed with himself, often pausing to scratch or stretch without any sign of self consciousness. Despite having to often revert to Tibetan and speak through a translator, his relaxed style of speech was compelling. He spoke on faith, suffering, and true knowledge.
On faith: He reiterated throughout the day that one should adhere to the faith/philosophy which is appropriate for you. Usually this is the one taught to you by your parents. If however, this does not work for you and you find yourself searching for another till you find something else that does work, that is fine as well. He spoke about all the worlds religions and how, at the core, they teach the same concepts; be humble, be good to each other, be charitable, be honorable, etc.
At one point while discussing faith he began to discuss how to use faith to improve one's own life. I felt this was one of the most useful concepts of the day. He stated that one should first determine what you believe. Then, each morning one should determine to implement what you believe. Then, at the end of each day, you should review your actions to see if you acted according to your beliefs. Where you did, you should rejoice and reinforce this behavior. Where you discover actions contrary to your stated beliefs, you should 'cultivate remorse and determine to change' these actions. In this way you will, slowly, over time, improve yourself as a person. He took time here to reinforce the idea that this will take time to achieve.
On Suffering: This subject is far more complex. At one point he connected suffering to ignorance. Which led to a discussion on ignorance, not as a lack of knowledge but an almost intentional self deceit of the true nature of life. He stated that as long as you do not understand the causes of your suffering all of your prayers/meditations are no more than wishes. That suffering as a fact exists because this reality we live in is conditioned for Karma. So that our actions determine our suffering. Ignorance of this clearly would put us onto a path of making bad choices.
He also stated that it is has been proven scientifically that when one sees others suffering the portions of the mind which control action are stimulated, but when one suffers personally, the portions which control fear are stimulated. He felt that this confirmed the philosophy that helping others requires compassion and courage while wallowing in your own suffering leads to fear which is a vicious cycle. Which further developed the theme that ignorance of our true situation is what feeds our suffering and 'binds us to Somsara'. Somsara being this material world of unenlightened suffering.
He spoke on the solutions offered in Buddhist, and other, teachings which provide paths to solve specific types of suffering (e.g. curing anger with pleasant thoughts) and said that while these do provide specific help. they do not provide a general solution. Only wisdom can do that.
True Knowledge:Which brings us to the topic of true knowledge. The area of which I probably have the least understanding, but will do my best to relate his teachings.
At one point he answered three questions about whether or not there was a beginning or end to the universe or the self. This was an extensive lecture in itself, so forgive the extreme vagueness of my overview. He said the reason Buddhism rejects an intelligent designer or a big bang from nothing has to do with causality. If there is an ID, a permanent cause, then it should have a permanent result. Yet this is not true the universe is clearly impermanent and transient. If there is a BB then we have a effect without a cause, which is problematic.
So Buddhism teaches (if I understand) that there is a mind/body aggregate that is continual. Both the physical and metaphysical are a one continuous thing which is in a never ending cycle of changing of form. That these are connected by the 12 Dependent Origins (a lecture of its own) not one singular origin.
The true nature of life is impermanence and transience. The purpose of life is to live in community, being altruistic. That the Dharma is a freedom from desire and participation in a community of practitioners. That attainment of Buddahood requires (among other things I presume) 'a fundamental aspiration for the welfare of all until the end of space/time'.
So this is what I took away from the lecture. I hope I related it properly. I hope you learned something from it. I do not know whether there is such a thing as Nirvana or Karma, but I do know that if one attempts to practice what you believe in and examine yourself for things you find worth correcting, you will become a better person. I believe that if all people strove to be altruistic the world would be better off.
I also believe that as the Dalai Lama is a world leader who preaches peace, altruism, and an end to suffering without demanding you believe what he believes he truly is Hero of Peace, worthy of our respect and admiration.
Thank you,
Peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)