Dept of Peace, Insanity in Writing

[mr715]

Am I the only one that thinks the establishment of a Federal Department of Peace is the most ridiculous notion ever constructed?

Dennis Kucinich conforms closest to me on many issues, including fuel regulation, gay marriage, campaign finance reform, health care, and environmental protection. However, his department of peace assertion just turned me off to his whole candidacy.

I am not a flower waving democrat. We have to accept the war is not inherently immoral, as in cases such as World Wars I and II, and the first Gulf War.

Additionally, it isnt our job to promote world peace. We are a single nation, with our own concerns and our own interests. It is, of course, in our own interests to remain at peace; and that is the sovereign domain of the Department of State.

The idea of a Department of Peace is one of those things which is so sacchrine it turns me off the whole idea of a man's candidacy. It is a claim to establish something unworkable, with a goal to make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

We live in Reality. We do not live in Crystal-Waving Land.

[goobergunch]

1. Have you read the bill in question?

SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT- There is hereby established a Department of Peace (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Department'), which shall--

(1) be a cabinet-level department in the executive branch of the Federal Government; and

(2) be dedicated to peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to both domestic and international peace.

(b) SECRETARY OF PEACE- There shall be at the head of the Department a Secretary of Peace (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Secretary'), who shall be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(c) MISSION- The Department shall--

(1) hold peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service to every level of American society;

(2) endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights;

(3) strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking;

(4) promote the development of human potential;

(5) work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution;

(6) take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict;

(7) address matters both domestic and international in scope; and

(8) encourage the development of initiatives from local communities, religious groups, and nongovernmental organizations.

SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall--

(1) work proactively and interactively with each branch of the Federal Government on all policy matters relating to conditions of peace;

(2) serve as a delegate to the National Security Council;

(3) call on the intellectual and spiritual wealth of the people of the United States and seek participation in its administration and in its development of policy from private, public, and nongovernmental organizations; and

(4) monitor and analyze causative principles of conflict and make policy recommendations for developing and maintaining peaceful conduct.

(b) DOMESTIC RESPONSIBILITIES- The Secretary shall--

(1) develop policies that address domestic violence, including spousal abuse, child abuse, and mistreatment of the elderly;

(2) create new policies and incorporate existing programs that reduce drug and alcohol abuse;

(3) develop new policies and incorporate existing policies regarding crime, punishment, and rehabilitation;

(4) develop policies to address violence against animals;

(5) analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns;

(6) develop new programs that relate to the societal challenges of school violence, gangs, racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and police-community relations disputes;

(7) make policy recommendations to the Attorney General regarding civil rights and labor law;

(8) assist in the establishment and funding of community-based violence prevention programs, including violence prevention counseling and peer mediation in schools;

(9) counsel and advocate on behalf of women victimized by violence;

(10) provide for public education programs and counseling strategies concerning hate crimes;

(11) promote racial, religious, and ethnic tolerance;

(12) finance local community initiatives that can draw on neighborhood resources to create peace projects that facilitate the development of conflict resolution at a national level and thereby inform and inspire national policy; and

(13) provide ethical-based and value-based analyses to the Department of Defense.

(c) INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES- The Secretary shall--

(1) advise the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State on all matters relating to national security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention of, amelioration of, and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international conflict;

(2) provide for the training of all United States personnel who administer postconflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn societies;

(3) sponsor country and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives, create special task forces, and draw on local, regional, and national expertise to develop plans and programs for addressing the root sources of conflict in troubled areas;

(4) provide for exchanges between the United States and other nations of individuals who endeavor to develop domestic and international peace-based initiatives;

(5) encourage the development of international sister city programs, pairing United States cities with cities around the globe for artistic, cultural, economic, educational, and faith-based exchanges;

(6) administer the training of civilian peacekeepers who participate in multinational nonviolent

police forces and support civilian police who participate in peacekeeping;

(7) jointly with the Secretary of the Treasury, strengthen peace enforcement through hiring and training monitors and investigators to help with the enforcement of international arms embargoes;

(8) facilitate the development of peace summits at which parties to a conflict may gather under carefully prepared conditions to promote nonviolent communication and mutually beneficial solutions;

(9) submit to the President recommendations for reductions in weapons of mass destruction, and make annual reports to the President on the sale of arms from the United States to other nations, with analysis of the impact of such sales on the defense of the United States and how such sales affect peace;

(10) in consultation with the Secretary of State, develop strategies for sustainability and management of the distribution of international funds; and

(11) advise the United States Ambassador to the United Nations on matters pertaining to the United Nations Security Council.

(d) HUMAN SECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES- The Secretary shall address and offer nonviolent conflict resolution strategies to all relevant parties on issues of human security if such security is threatened by conflict, whether such conflict is geographic, religious, ethnic, racial, or class-based in its origin, derives from economic concerns (including trade or maldistribution of wealth), or is initiated through disputes concerning scarcity of natural resources (such as water and energy resources), food, trade, or environmental concerns.

(e) MEDIA-RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES- Respecting the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the requirement for free and independent media, the Secretary shall--

(1) seek assistance in the design and implementation of nonviolent policies from media professionals;

(2) study the role of the media in the escalation and de-escalation of conflict at domestic and international levels and make findings public; and

(3) make recommendations to professional media organizations in order to provide opportunities to increase media awareness of peace-building initiatives.

(f) EDUCATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES- The Secretary shall--

(1) develop a peace education curriculum, which shall include studies of--

(A) the civil rights movement in the United States and throughout the world, with special emphasis on how individual endeavor and involvement have contributed to advancements in peace and justice; and

(B) peace agreements and circumstances in which peaceful intervention has worked to stop conflict;

(2) in cooperation with the Secretary of Education--

(A) commission the development of such curricula and make such curricula available to local school districts to enable the utilization of peace education objectives at all elementary and secondary schools in the United States; and

(B) offer incentives in the form of grants and training to encourage the development of State peace curricula and assist schools in applying for such curricula;

(3) work with educators to equip students to become skilled in achieving peace through reflection, and facilitate instruction in the ways of peaceful conflict resolution;

(4) maintain a site on the Internet for the purposes of soliciting and receiving ideas for the development of peace from the wealth of political, social and cultural diversity;

(5) proactively engage the critical thinking capabilities of grade school, high school, and college students and teachers through the Internet and other media and issue periodic reports concerning submissions;

(6) create and establish a Peace Academy, which shall--

(A) be modeled after the military service academies;

(B) provide a 4-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates will be required to serve 5 years in public service in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution; and

(7) provide grants for peace studies departments in colleges and universities throughout the United States.

more...http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h1673ih.txt.pdf

[mr715]

2. Yup

I have, and it is all within the manifest domain of the Department of State.

The establishment of a Dept of Peace will create peace no better than an Anti-Gravity Department will make fat people lighter.

[maxanne]

4. yeah

peace is a bad thing. Apparently so are fat people, too.

[leyton]

22. It's not that peace is bad.

I have two issues with the Department of Peace:

1) It is, as a previous poster said, encroaching on the domain of the State Department. Is the State Department not in charge of foreign policy? Is it not in charge of some peacekeeping measures? If you want to expand this sort of thing, by all means do so, but there's no need for a new cabinet department. Just add the measures you want to the existing department.

2) I don't see any concrete link between curbing violence at home (spousal abuse, gang violence) and violence abroad (such as in Haiti) other than the general principle that "violence is bad." These types of problems require different solutions: violence abroad requires diplomatic means, humanitarian aid, and the appropriate logistics to get it all overseas. The violence at home is more of a matter of crime and will be most effectively stopped by local police because violent crime is a local problem. (I think most federal crime involves interstate crimes, wire fraud, assaults on federal property, and the like.)

The Department of the Peace is well-intentioned, but what is the need? If you want nonviolence as an organizing principle, than hang up a banner and shout it from the rooftops, and infuse that principle into the Department of State. That's what it's there for.

[rucky]

32. What's the State Department done to reduce domestic violence?

[leyton]

35. That's not the domain of the state department...

IMO it's the domain of local police forces and if on a federal level it's the domain of HHS.

[tameszu]

77. Nice thought, but 2 big institutional problems:

1. Considering how broadly DK has defined "peace," this line provides potential for real trouble:

"work proactively and interactively with each branch of the Federal Government on all policy matters relating to conditions of peace"

2. Mixing foreign with domestic issues in a new cabinet-level post is not a good idea. For both better and worse, the Federal government is really, really huge, folks. Creating a new institution whose power and jurisdiction are humongous and fuzzy for the sake of fuzzy feelings is not a good idea.

The foreign affairs side of this is actually pretty good--Wes Clark had a similar sort of idea with his Department of International Assistance/Development.

Oh, and I'd rename it too--between the kumbaya thing and the potential for Orwellian manipulation thing (witness Daniel Pipes), we could use a bit more of a grounded name for this, I think.

[corporatewhore]

3. the Dept of Peace is about ending urban/domestic violence

[jpgray]

5. You lost me--who were the good guys in World War I? (nt)

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maxanne]

17. so hippies

are bad and so are Germans. In the world according to mr715 - who is okay?

[burythehatchet]

19. If I could rephrase your own words...

"peace...isnt intrinsically good...."

Do you stand by those words?

Heck regardless if you do or don't, this is a pointless debate

[MAlibdem]

33. War never solved anything

Except for ending nazism, slavery, communism, and fascism


edit: spelling

[youngred]

51. and gee....war started all those things too

so..... what's your point?

[MAlibdem]

67. war started slavery?

wtf? war started Leninist-Stalinist Communism?

[youngred]

98. Yes

WWI gave rise to Leninist/Stalinist Communism as well as created the situation for the rise of Nazism, as well as being a driving force behind them.

War barely ended slavery, but only as a side effect of open rebellion.

[Rainbowreflect]

55. Have we really ended any of those things.

I think they all still exist in our world and many time are increased and spread by war.

[tameszu]

74. Uh, there's definitely a lot less slavery in the world

and a lot less facism and nazism too.

(And before you start, there may be major assholes and criminals in the WH, but our present condition is NOTHING like facist Germany.)

[diamondsoul]

83. Read this and then tell me

this statement is even slightly true-"our present condition is NOTHING like facist Germany"

http://www.thomhartmann.com/democracyfailed.shtml

[tameszu]

90. Oh please

Excuse me, but where/when was today's analogue to kristallnacht?

The U.S. has a lot of structural problems and inequities, but it is not facist. You do a massive disservice to the millions of people who were slaughtered in the holocaust and by real facism by continuing to push this historically ungounded claim.

And you wonder why your movement is DOA.

[Kanary]

94. And, "please" to you..

One of the big lessons to come out of the war against the Nazis is that it's up to each and every citizen to recognize when their country is going in the wrong direction, and to speak out. There are definite and frightening tendencies coming to the fore now, and it's *IS* our duty to point them out and speak up.

One of the main indications of fascism is industry and corporations becoming the "power behind the throne", and influencing policy that affects the average citizen. We're at that point now. Eisenhower warned us about that, and we have yet to take full notice of it.

I would certainly hope that you aren't advocating waiting until we have a full-blown state of fascism before we attempt to do something about it? Because at that stage, attempt would be all there is, and it would most likely fail.

Fascism will take different forms, as it has in the past. Looking for one instance of "kristallnacht" could be a red herring. We're not up against a bunch of dummies... they will cover their tracks, and make it *appear* NOT to be what it most clearly is.

Here's a partial bit of an article.... maybe this will ring a bell for you: http://www.civnet.org/journal/issue5/revwart.htm

" Fascism is generally defined as a political
movement embracing rigid one-party
dictatorship, private economic enterprise
under government control, and
belligerent nationalism, racism, and
militarism. Generally defined, because
historians and academics have failed to
agree on its precise definition, in part due
to the protean quality of fascism itself.
Mussolini's fascism differed from Hitler's,
and as The Beast Reawakens reminds
us, while some contemporary fascists
shave their heads, wear swastikas, and
engage in paramilitary and terrorist
training, others present themselves as
ordinary politicians, toning down their
racist views and recasting themselves as
national populists in order to establish
themselves within the political
mainstream. It is, of course, part of the
burden of democracy to withstand–to
some degree–odious views as well as
benevolent ones. Indeed, Lee quotes
Frankfurt School philosopher Theodor
Adorno, who viewed "the continued
existence of fascism WITHIN
democracy more threatening than
the continued existence of fascist
tendencies AGAINST democracy." Yet
as Lee also argues, "A vibrant
democratic culture is not conducive to
the growth of fascism."

Surely you can see some parallels? Waiting until it slaps us in the face will be too late.

Our democratic system has *LOST* it's "vibrancy", as attested to by the apathy and low voter turnouts. THat's what we're in the process of trying to correct.

Kanary

[leyton]

100. I don't believe we're near fascism.

There is no one-party system emerging (yes, the GOP controls all branches of government, but only by a hair in each case, and they won't have the White House this time next year!). Membership nationwide is about equal for both parties. The last election was close, this one will probably be too.

"Our democratic system has *LOST* it's "vibrancy", as attested to by the apathy and low voter turnouts. THat's what we're in the process of trying to correct. "

Huh? Voter turnout was indeed low in 2000 and 2004. But look at the turnout in the primaries. Look at the extensive media coverage these primaries have gotten. Look at the grassroots efforts, especially in the Kucinich and Dean and Clark campaigns (Meetups anyone?). Democracy is indeed vibrant here. I don't think there's as much apathy as there was in the nineties. People everywhere have opinions on Bush and current events.

[tameszu]

101. Uh, good luck--and you wonder why DK is having trouble

"One of the big lessons to come out of the war against the Nazis is that it's up to each and every citizen to recognize when their country is going in the wrong direction, and to speak out. There are definite and frightening tendencies coming to the fore now, and it's *IS* our duty to point them out and speak up."

Absolutely, you should speak out, but making specious historical or political comparisons is unhelpful. Do RW-ers have something in common with facists? Possibly, to the degree that facism anchors the extreme end of the left facism. But the arguments by anti-globalizationists (and the kinship they are feeling with isolationalist Buchananites) is not a good solution to the oligarchical tendencies that the ascendant Republicans are demonstrating. As long as our lib-dem institutions that allow for civil dissent and opposition through both informal and formal channels still exist, radicalism seems counterproductive. Factually impaired radicalism, even less so.

"Our democratic system has *LOST* it's "vibrancy", as attested to by the apathy and low voter turnouts. THat's what we're in the process of trying to correct."

Yes, but because a system lacks "democratic vibrancy" in no way means that it is facist. Japan's democracy lacks vibrancy. The EU has a democratic defocit. Neither are not fascist. And you are not going to be able to increase empowerment if you cannot communicate your ideas to a decent amount of people. Speaking only at Volume 11, with gross hyperbole and poor historical comparisons, aids communication little. You can help correct apathy by developing ways to make political participation more effective and meaningful--but going around shouting that our system is akin to 1930s Germany won't do that.

[diamondsoul]

99. Uh, no, I RESPECT holocaust victims

enough to never be willing to sit idle while it happens again, thanks.

By the way I can assure you that my Great Grandparents who managed to escape Germany before they were targetted by Hitler's death squads would support everything I've said, and CHEER soundly for Kanary's response.

[tameszu]

102. If you respect them

then you will not compare our experience to their's.

The plight of the two most discriminated against groups in this country--blacks and Native Americans--has been dire and marked by racism and indeed, in the past, by suffering and even crimes equivalent or close to genocide. But no mainstream leader and certain of either group would say that they are currently the targets of a program of ethnic cleansing that is anything like the project that the Nazis were undertaking in the 1930s.

Nor is there anything close to majority support for the kinds of anti-democratic measures the Nazis were taking either: the Republicans' hardcore is below 30% of the overall population; it is likely that the Democrats will win the popular vote if not the presidency this year. My roommate is a moderate upstate Republican. He will not be voting Bush this year, but he still will call himself a Republican. He is nothing close to a fascist or a Nazi. Again, to say that he has a kinship with fascists is both historically wrong and incredibly insulting and ignorant to both conservatives who are sincerely trying to participate in public as well as those who lived through the holocaust, and will do NOTHING to help improve our democracy.

[bobthedrummer]

63. We are being governed by fascists-hello?

:wtf:

[no name no slogan]

20. There were none

It was possibly the most pointless war ever fought. It was old Europe up to its same pissing matches, but this time with the added benefit of better killing technology.

It was a waste. Nothing was resolved, except Germany was castrated. Which led to the rise of Naziism in Germany, which led to WWII, which led to the Cold War, etc.

[leyton]

25. ignore

I should have kept reading.

[Uzybone]

6. I think Kooch is ahead of his time

thats all. Right now its a crazy idea, and will never pass. 10, 20 ,30 years from now, he may be seen as a visionary.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. Actually the CENTER For Defense Information used to put on a program

called, "America's Defense Monitor." They dedicated an entire program to militaristic euphamisms such as the fact that PEACE is referred to in defense manuals as "permanent pre-hostility" and the fact that missiles are named "peacekeeper."

It is also noteworthy that the Department of Defense USED to be called the Department of War.
The Center for Defense Information was born out of a deep concern on the part of retired military officers with the manner in which Reagan expanded the defense budget for toys such as missile defense that will never work and wouldn't even be necessary if we didn't sell so much equipment of death to so many countries.

If retired Admirals can have a concern with this issue..then it is perfectly valid for Kucinich to bring it to light.

The people really living in LA LA land are the people who thinkour defense budget is going on DEFENDING us when so much of it is funneled secretly to the CIA who is in countries creating unrest.

BTW..I am a Kerry fan and John Kerry IS WELL AWARE of this.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. BTW..what WAS immoral about the first gulf war was the manner in which

Saddam was dared by April Glaspie of the Bush 41 admin into BEING the aggressor in Kuwait....again..the Center For Defense Information led by former high level military addressed this in one of their programs which are still available through WQED.

[redqueen]

18. How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf

Great book, a must read:

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Thanks. I've read it. I'm more concerned with how the thread starter

hasn't bothered to address my post. :D

[charlie]

28. Criminy!

How come I'd never heard of the CDI before? Here's a pullquote from one of their frontpage articles (emphasis is mine):

... the president’s supporting command system is not actually geared to withhold retaliation in the event of enemy missile attack, real or apparent. It is so greased for the rapid release of U.S. missiles forces by the thousands upon the receipt of attack indications from early warning satellites and ground radar that the president’s options are not all created equal. The bias in favor of launch on electronic warning is so powerful that it would take enormously more presidential will to withhold an attack than to authorize it. The option to “ride out” the onslaught and then take stock of the proper course of action exists only on paper. That is what presidents never learn during their tenures. Their real control is illusory. What’s more, the truth has been kept from the presidents intentionally. From Bruce G. Blair, Ph.D, CDI President and former ICBM launch control officer.

This site is rife with astonishing stuff, drawn from sources with expert credentials. Thanks for the heads up.

http://www.cdi.org/

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. see, Charlie..even horrible people like myself know that NOT all of the

military are assholes..after all it was Eisenhower that warned us of the MIC..also READ their section on the SMALL ARMS trade....if you ride with Smith and Wesson you are supporting terrorism...


BTW..prior to his death, Admiral Eugene Carroll was on Malloy...he was one of the top guys at CDI..they are a great organization and they DO take a serious look at the world's hot spots...many of which would exist regardless of or policies...we aren't the only power mongers on the planet..just the biggest ones.

[snoochie]

65. Wow

The fact that you pointed out that we're not the only power mongers... I mean the fact that I guess you felt you needed to point that out, it just surprised me. I thought that would be a given - understood, you know? Reading that just now I was really taken aback.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

79. Great study if you want to read it

Long but good.

http://www.icij.org/dtaweb/icij_bow.asp

[snoochie]

81. Thanks,

read those as they came out. GMTA :)

I was just really shocked that anyone would be under the impression that we were the only ones in the business of warmongering.

[Rainbowreflect]

9. I believe it is possible to avoid most if not all war with good diplomacy.

A department of peace shows that peace is a priority with our country. There may be time when armed conflict is necessary, but should we not do everything we can to promote peace?

[leyton]

26. Are you saying the department is for show?

Creating a department should be a serious endeavor, about getting results and not just sending a message. If you want to send a message, that's what rhetoric is for.

[Rainbowreflect]

31. Of course it would not be just for show.

It would help our country make nonviolence, diplomacy, and peace a priority that we are all working toward.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. It's a great idea - we just have to re-name the Defense Department

the "Department of War" - the original name, and a lot more honest

[scarletwoman]

11. Are you the only one?

Probably not.

On the other hand, I already know that I'm not the only who thinks it's FINE idea.

Hope that answers your question...

sw

[Forkboy]

13. peace? who needs it!?!?!

it's for wimps!

[marialicht]

80. If the word "peace" sounds "wimpy"

try replacing it with concepts that you may actually want to see actualized, and that peace makes possible: like love, happiness, harmony. Do any of those things seem worthwhile and not "wimpy" to you, because they are simply different ways of talking about peace.

[snoochie]

82. What a wonderful post!

Welcome to DU, marialicht!

:hi:

[Forkboy]

84. I was being sarcastic

[Desertrose]

86. I figured you were, but these days.....

its hard to tell...
:shrug:

Peace...its a good thing :) oh yeah, and its NOT wimpy...at all :)
DR

[Forkboy]

93. I think Kucinich

is the best one out there,by far.He's one of the rare politicians that actually inspires me...those are few and far between for me :)

Sorry about the confusion.

[Mairead]

14. A Department of Peace was first proposed by Dr Benj. Rush in 1793

Rush was the former Surgeon General of the revolutionary army. His proposal was published in the Almanac of which Benjamin Banneker, the first recognised Black US scientist, was founder and editor.

The idea seemed a very sensible one to them. Too bad you disagree.

[sleipnir]

15. Friend, you need to study your history...

WWI was the most immoral, wrong war ever fought up until our recent crusade into Iraq. The entrance of the US was not even needed, but many corporations wanted to make some cash, so off to war we went. The Great War was almost all but done by the time the US got into the fray. Austria-Hungary/Germany were close to defeat, the US just ended the war 3 or 4 months earlier.

The whole affair was worthless, the greatest loss of life for petty reasons and elitist squabbling.

Please don't equate that War as a "just" cause, it never was and it never will be.

I agree that war is a natural occurrence with Humanity, but that doesn't mean we don't stop trying to end war. Homo-sapians were pretty damn fond of human sacrifice for tens of thousands of years, but we've been able to give up that early tribal practice. So why won't we be able to give up War?

[kiahzero]

87. Actually, that's not why we went into WWI

Woodrow Wilson wanted to a hand in creating the post-War peace... only belligerants are able to participate in that process, so in we went. Ever hear of the 14 Points? That's the reason the US got involved in WWI.

Ironically, if the Senate had allowed the US to join the League of Nations, it's possible that it would have been an effective body, and been able to forstall WWII.

[no name no slogan]

16. We already have a dept like it, just not at cabinet-level

And I don't think you quite understand the entire purpose of a Dept of Peace, either.

The Department would not just focus on international peace, but on other aspects of our society: domestic violence, non-violent conflict resolution, etc.

These are things that are already being taught in many schools, from elementary to graduate level, and have helped make this country a more peaceful place.

And he's not the only one advocating such a department, either. His House resolution for a cabinet-level Department of Peace has fifty co-sponsors. I'd hardly call that "radical" or "out there".

I have a feeling that you're relying more on media spin and buzz more than on the facts of the plan. Go read up on his plan, it will probably do a much better job than I can explaining it.

[goobergunch]

23. Co-Sponsors for HR 1673

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 4/8/2003
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 4/8/2003
Rep Brown, Sherrod - 4/8/2003
Rep Carson, Julia - 4/8/2003
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 4/8/2003
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 4/8/2003
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 4/8/2003
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 4/8/2003
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 4/8/2003
Rep Evans, Lane - 4/8/2003
Rep Farr, Sam - 4/8/2003
Rep Filner, Bob - 4/8/2003
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 4/8/2003
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. - 4/8/2003
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 4/8/2003
Rep Holt, Rush D. - 6/10/2003
Rep Honda, Michael M. - 4/8/2003
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 4/8/2003
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 4/8/2003
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice - 4/8/2003
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs - 4/8/2003
Rep Lee, Barbara - 4/8/2003
Rep Lewis, John - 4/8/2003
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 4/8/2003
Rep McDermott, Jim - 4/8/2003
Rep McGovern, James P. - 4/8/2003
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. - 4/8/2003
Rep Miller, George - 4/8/2003
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 4/8/2003
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 5/6/2003
Rep Oberstar, James L. - 4/8/2003
Rep Olver, John W. - 4/8/2003
Rep Owens, Major R. - 4/8/2003
Rep Payne, Donald M. - 4/8/2003
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II - 4/8/2003
Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 4/8/2003
Rep Ryan, Timothy J. - 4/8/2003
Rep Sanders, Bernard - 4/8/2003
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 4/8/2003
Rep Scott, Robert C. - 4/8/2003
Rep Serrano, Jose E. - 4/8/2003
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 4/8/2003
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 4/8/2003
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. - 7/21/2003
Rep Towns, Edolphus - 4/8/2003
Rep Udall, Mark - 4/8/2003
Rep Waters, Maxine - 4/8/2003
Rep Watson, Diane E. - 4/8/2003
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 4/8/2003

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR01673:@@@P

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

37. Pretty impressive cosponsor list.

I see Sherrod Brown & Luis Guitierrez are cosponsers. Thats a good sign.

[no name no slogan]

38. You said it.

Too bad they're all "insane" according to some people. :D

[anti-NAFTA]

21. It's turned me off a little.

I hate the Pentagon and want to see the military budget slashed into little pieces, but the Dept of Peace stuff sounds like it's coming from some stoned college student. And since I have never had a soft spot for those sorts of people, he's promoted an image that is extremely unappealing. And then there's his whole bogus alternative spirituality straight from the Hollywood book of kookyism.

[eridani]

70. What 'bogus' spirituality?

New Age woowooism is what Doug Adams would call Mostly Harmless. However silly crystalgazing is, the Bush demographic base consists of 20% of the population or so who are expecting to disappear and go to heaven any time soon now, as a prequel to Armageddon. Pandering to borderline psychotics like this does not appear to disqualify Bush from being 'presidential.'

I've worked with quite a few fellow Kucinich volunteers, and have never found anything but some who are terminally perky. Not exactly a hanging offense, even for a Chomsky-type sourball like myself.

The real woowoo silly fairy people are those who refuse to realize that the basic strategic reality of the 21st century is that domination is extremely expensive, and FSU is extremely cheap.

(FSU = Fucking Shit Up)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Woohhoo, it's up to $100 for Dennis!

Keep those snide threads coming, people.

[Fovea]

29. Do not confuse peace with passivity

Negotiation is harder than war. That is why we do it well so infrequently.

I think that America needs something that exists
to be an advocatus diaboli for the military industrial
complex.

You might profit from a reading of the new Kevin Phillips book.

There is nothing wimpy about peace.

Or, as Elvis Costello sang 20 some years ago...
"What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?"

[rucky]

34. The Department of Homeland Security Isn't Ridiculous?

Now we admit that the Department of Defense is not intended to defend us, so we may as well rename it the Department of War - cuz that's what they do.

So we've got the MIC pushing for WAR - and plenty of corporate interests to back that up. Who in the government is pushing for Peace? Colin Powell? Who profits from Peace? Everyone, but not in that big-bucks instant gratification sort of way that war does. All Peace advocacy comes from grassroots (and that's oh-so effective against the Military Industrial Complex, dontcha know). Yet it's not ridiculous to have a War advocacy that comes from within the government - unchecked?

[Astarho]

36. Just you

The Dept. of peace is what Kucinish has explained it, as a dept. to make non-violence an important part of our culture. It will not only help abroad, but also at home dealing with domestic violence, child abuse and so forth. I'm sure all those battered wives and abused children just want to feel all "warm and fuzzy inside." BTW the Navajo Nation has had "Peace Courts" for years that work along similar lines to Kucinich's dept. of peace.

We have to accept the war is not inherently immoral, as in cases such as World Wars I and II, and the first Gulf War.

War is not inherently immoral, but it should be much more avoidable. As for your history, WWI was basically nothing more then the squabbling of various European monarchs, and the first Gulf War was Bush I's double-cross to Iraq.

We live in Reality. We do not live in Crystal-Waving Land.

And nothing ever changes and it all stays exactly like it is now, right?

[Imajika]

39. I just find it silly

We live in the real world, not some fantasyland.

The world is not a peaceful place and it never will be. Humans are not peaceful by nature, and they never will be.

The best way to preserve peace for our nation and our allies is to maintain a strong military, treat the world community with respect and stop sticking our noses into everyone's business.

The very notion of a Department of Peace sounds like something straight out of some hippie commune. The idea will never be taken seriously by the American public, and anyone proposing a Department of Peace will immediately make themselves less electable on the national stage. And if I am wrong, and such a department were really established, it would accomplish nothing.

Imajika

[scarletwoman]

40. You're right, nothing EVER changes.

Ending slavery? Out of the question, the economy depends on it!

Woman's sufferage? The end of families! Mayhem in government!

Social security? Socialism! Unthinkable!

Medicare? MORE socialism! Horrors!

Civil rights? What?!? Let THOSE people mingle with good white folks?!?

Yep, lucky for us that conventional wisdom guides our choices. Thank goodness NOTHING ever changes!

sw

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. Amazing what anger and dismissal the word PEACE invokes

nothing on you..just found the post funny...I imagine years ago some neaderthal hit another neaderthal over the head for being unrealistinc and told him "It's in our nature to drag our knuckles."

I might be pragmatic about defense matters but I'm not resigned. Transformation is possible. It used to be in our nature to die at age 30 or so...now it's well into the 80's...who knows...maybe we can medicate this out of our nature (but let's wait until we break up big pharma...or there will only be peace for the uber wealthy)

[RichM]

41. You're right - bombing helpless civilians is much more "sane."

Let's spend more on the "defense" budget. Anyone who looks crosswise at us - let's kill 'em. :crazy::crazy::crazy:

PS - read some unpropagandized history. World War I had no good guys and no bad guys. We were not "good guys." It wasn't a moral endeavor. And WWII is not nearly as clear-cut as is commonly supposed, because the profound injustices perpetrated by the Allies at Versailles in 1919 had much to do with guaranteeing that a second world war would come to pass.

PS #2 - When you write sentences like "We are a single nation, with ... our own interests," have you ever wondered just exactly who this "we" is? Hint: it isn't you, & it isn't me. Virtually all American wars are fought for the benefit of a small sliver of the population - oil companies, defense contractors, large financial interests. The idea that the wars are for "our" interests is pure hogwash. It's for "their" interests. They've merely made you think it's for "your" interests.

[Tinoire]

42. Judging by the tone of the replies to your question, I'd say YES.

You seem to be the only one.

Rest assured though, there are a few other "realistic" people out there who don't like the idea either. They think it's a lot more realistic to vote for a war because you can always turn around and say that you were misled.

Peace. It's a bad, bad thing.

[scarletwoman]

43. LOL!

"Peace. It's a bad, bad thing."

Cracks me up!

sw

[JVS]

75. Good one!

[mountebank]

44. Dept of Peace not only humane - but economical.

War is the most unsustainble practice on the planet, and a complete waste of money. I do not believe it is an inherent part of Homo sapiens. I do believe it is so enriching to those entrenched in power that it has thus far been ubiquitous throughout the history of humanity. A Department of Peace is socially and economically sane - but I agree, quite politically insane in our sorry social climate.

[On the Road]

45. How Groups Behave

depends largely on how they are organized and what points of view are represented. There is a Department of War. From an organizational standpoint, I like the idea of a Department of Peace. And the State Department is no substitute.

I don't care what it sounds like. A whole host of policy decisions are decided at cabinet level. Having an advocate for constructive peaceful solutions at that level is worth considering. It would make a difference.

[scarletwoman]

47. Thank you

A thoughtful and well-reasoned post.

sw

[leyton]

49. Are they really made at cabinet level?

I was under the impression that the cabinet only met as a group maybe once a quarter or so. I think policy is formulated in the White House and maybe on the National Security Council and the National Economic Council (or whatever it's called). I don't get the impression that the entire cabinet meets and debates policy.

If you want an advocate for peace, by all means, get one. But why create another department?

[On the Road]

53. If the Decisionmaking Process is Different,

than it might be worth considering another way of going about it. I haven't read a lot of presidential history. Paul O'Neill's book made it sound as though cabinet meetings were more frequent and more substantive that you suggest.

Most presidents have kitchen cabinets where a lot of policy is made, and there's no getting around that. But even if a cabinet member is not in the inner circle, it changes the context. There is no substitute for a high-level advocate.

Making the Secretary of Peace a cabinet post institutionalizes it. A president Kucinich might not need a Secretary of Peace to keep him honest. Most presidents would.

[scarletwoman]

57. Thank you for some very good points!

Institutionalizing is important.

sw

[Dhalgren]

61. Each cabinet secretary usually meets with the President every week

or every other week - according to what is going on. (at least that is the way it is done in a "real" presidency' we won't discuss that abomination tha Bush has slugged together). Policy is made at the cabinet level - not necessarily with a whole cabinet meeting.

[rhite5]

46. Evolution

It is a sad fact that civilzation in our country is in important ways not as highly evolved as most Native American tribes were 300 years ago.

We are a violent country, domestically and internationally.
In comparison with most of Western Europe and Japan we are by far the most violent. Statistics bear this out.

Really, if Peace as an Organizing Principle is silly, then obviously we have a lot of growing up to do.

Caution about being ahead of his time has never held Dennis back before. It won't shut him up now. He is a visionary. We have got to have visionaries or we will never evolve.

[tobius]

50. what happened to the tribes when they faced a people whose intent

was to destroy them? <rhetorical>

[scarletwoman]

52. Amazingly enough, over 550 tribes have survived

And many of them have managed to preserve/revive/adapt their traditional cultural values and tribal identities. Had they been less viable societies, they would have disappeared completely.

sw

[tobius]

54. it was a rhetorical question.- you're not advocating what happened,

it wasn't a good outcome.

[scarletwoman]

56. Of course not!

Actually, I have to admit that I really didn't get what your point was -- sorry -- and I did see your <rhetorical> at the end of your post. I just thought I'd throw in a little bonus information on the topic you brought up.

Reflex action, I guess. I've been an activist in American Indian political issues for many years -- I for SURE don't advocate what happened!

Peace,
sw

[govegan]

48. So what land do we live in?

WMD threat-waving land?

Bug and intimidate the United Nations land?

Plastic and duct-tape on your windows land?

Fight in a war one day and march against it the next land?

Help to overthrow democratically elected governments that won't sell out to the monopolist-capitalist oligarchy land?

Fox news land?

The United States of Reality?

............................

Scott Nearing wrote a beautiful monograph in the 1920's called "Oil and the Germs of War." You should read it sometime. It could have been written yesterday, such was the prescience of the author.

Now we live in a never ending state of war, now called the "war on terror."

As Nearing also wrote: "The apparatus for waging and winning war is part of the institutional equipment of states. When the war-making apparatus becomes dominant, a civil state becomes a warfare state. In a warfare state waging war is a standard aspect of state policy as periodic war becomes permanent. Warfare states minimize persuasion and accept armed violence as the chief instrument for enforcing policy."

.............................................

[absyntheNsugar]

58. I've always thought it was a goofy idea too

Especially because when a Republican Administration comes into power, they will wage all kinds of wars using the "Department of Peace"

War is Peace!

[JVS]

76. I guess it would have the potential to be twisted in an orwellian manner

[John_H]

59. Dept of Peace is the best single idea of the primary

both politically and morally.

First, the moral: Imagine--an agency which focuses whatever portion of America's influence, political juice, and moral authority that remains after Chimp's debacle, on saving lives.

Sure peace should always be formal US policy, which is handled by the state department, but a department dedicated solely on ending and preventing war has much more freedom and flexibility--both in real terms and in "public diplomacy" appearances--to operate. It'd take too long to go into here but read up on the history of the Agency of International Development and take a look at Dennis's web page and you'll get an idea of what I mean.

This agency would, however, have to be a non-cabinet post similar to AID, probably also under the supervision of the State Department or else it will never happen. Neither the congress nor the foreign policy establishment would in a million years allow State to lose any authority on that scale.

Politically the Dept of Peace, if done seriously without a lot of dippy hippy BS, is a big peaceful shit sandwich to put on Chimp's plate. Who can be against Peace? Why, Republicans, of course. Let them be. Let them explain--as Americans are killed and maimed in two countries-- why an agency that promotes peace is a bad or unnecessary idea.

[scarletwoman]

60. "Who can be against Peace?"

Apparently the originator of this thread and several other posters find it "insane", "silly", and "unrealistic".

Apparently war is "normal" and therefore perfectly acceptable, but peace is "hippy-dippy". :shrug:

sw

[John_H]

62. no, the word peace is too often cheapened by hippy-dippy

pop-culture sentimentality, which may be why the OP had a knee jerk reaction to a Department of Peace and why I proposed that department of peace legislation be light on the "come-on-people-now-smile-on-your-self-actualized-brother" rhetoric and heavy on real authority and funding to stop and prevent war.

[Dhalgren]

64. It is a sad state of affairs

when an honest, good man invisions a beautiful concept and then is promptly ridiculed. Some Americans have gone way past the "ugly" stage, and worse, they are proud of it.

[scarletwoman]

66. Indeed. (n/t)

[leyton]

92. That's not what they said.

"Apparently the originator of this thread and several other posters find it "insane", "silly", and "unrealistic"."

That's assuming peace in general and a cabinet department committed to peace (as if the Department of Health and Human Services is dedicated to war) can be equated, which I don't think they can. I think the point was more that the Department of Peace is unfeasable politically and really not necessary.

[ScreamingMeemie]

68. No, the most ridiculous thing ever constructed is the Dept of

Homeland security. I don't cringe when I hear the words,"Dept of Peace" :shrug:

[eridani]

69. Not insanity, but not a priority for me either

Nice idea, but a President Kucinich would have an awfully full plate to spend time on setting up new cabinet departments. I would expect and demand serious action on health care before any effort goes into this.

[WillyT]

71. Yeah, But So Was The Declaration Of Independence, And...

the Emancipation Proclamation to name couple more.

Radical ideas are always laughed off at first.

:shrug:

[WillyT]

89. Matter Of Fact, Here's A Doozy !!!

Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Written by: John Lennon

And I too, hope some day you will join us.

Peace man!!!

All ya need is :loveya:

[leyton]

91. The Emancipation Proclamation was not radical.

The abolitionist movement was around before the Emancipation Proclamation, and it was particularly strong among sects of the Republican party. There were those that called for immediate emancipation, gradual emancipation, and just sending all slaves back to Africa. In this context, the emancipation proclamation - which basically said that Lincoln would free slaves as a military action and would not take the same measures in Union slaveholding states such as Maryland and Kentucky - was not so radical. It was purely a strategic option.

[WillyT]

95. Ok... But As Old As I Am...

I wasn't there at the time, and while what you say may have been true for those in 19th Century politics and Academia, I'm pretty certain that the average 19th Century Joe\Josephine would have read it (or had it read to them) as a pretty Radical piece of Literature, no???

:shrug:

[leyton]

97. Perhaps...

I'm not that old either. :)

[Kanary]

96. Which shows just how far the Republican Party has deteriorated

[Zomby Woof]

72. I love salsa, by gosh.

[XanaDUer]

103. I love noodles!

Eom.

[genius]

73. From your post, it's clear you haven't read the document.

Really read it. It's one of the greatest documents of all time.

[Desertrose]

85. what in the world does "crystal waving" have to do with a DoP?

you would look less foolish if you would read the document/proposal before you go shooting off your uninformed mouth...

really...

BTW- the Navajo have Peace Courts which are very similar to the domestic portion of the DoP...works well for them & no one has a problem with it...

Peace is strength.
DR

[Kanary]

88. I guess the Swiss are "insane". Imagine that.

A whole country full of "insane" people.

At least they don't live up to the stereotypical (and wrong) image of "insane".....wild-eyed crazies running around, imaging enemies where they don't exist, and attacking anyone who dares to look at them, let alone speak to them.

Yup, we sure wouldn't want to have this in common with the Swiss, now would we? Able to use all those billions for the good of our citizens, rather than to enrich the companies who make war toys.

Kanary