Take the Damn Thing Back

Trey Smith

The organization, Roots Action, has started a petition to ask the Nobel Peace Prize committee to rescind the award given to Barack Obama in 2009.

After receiving the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama has made perpetual war look more perpetual than ever.

Today, there are more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than when Obama took office. His presidency has widened the use of drones and other instruments of remote killing in several countries.

I realize that the chance it will make a difference is remote, but I proudly signed on. I personally believe the Peace Prize is disgraced by having the war-minded Obama as one of its recipients. It is just as bad as when the prize went to Henry Kissinger back in 1973. Of all the people to give a peace prize to, they chose Kissinger? That would be like awarding Richard Nixon a prize for being the most honest president!

Occupying Oneself V

Scott Bradley

There has been, I hope, a kind of logical progression in this series, and if there has, it has also come full circle back to where it began, namely one's self-relationship. How we treat ourselves is also how we treat others, our environment, and the unknown source of our existence. This is why anything we might wish to accomplish in the world, in terms of improving the world, must begin with ourselves.

I recently finished an online course in becoming a "peace ambassador" and every one of the lecturers, though themselves deeply involved in doing peace in the world, began with the simple observation that it begins in one's own heart. If it isn't there, we can't bring it anywhere else. I accepted my 'diploma', but if I earned it, it is only in having come to realize more thoroughly that I am not yet ready to do much of anything other than my own inner work. Obviously, we are always at work on the full range of our being-in-the-world, but 'activism' is a conscious step toward involvement that presumes significant progress toward one's own inner peace.

This prerequisite need for inner peace applies as equally to trying to 'help' individuals in their needs as it does to bringing peace through reconciliation in Rwanda. Otherwise, our efforts are likely to resemble the antics of the magician's apprentice who, thinking he knew what he was doing, ended up in a chaotic situation beyond his control.

This inner work does not take place without reference to the wider world, however. Only where the rubber hits the road, in relational living, are 'spiritual' feelings validated. And when I, for instance, speak of realizing absolute unconditional self-affirmation, it is not without awareness that it cannot be true for me until I have also allowed it to be true for you and every other reality. Self-forgiveness is impossible without universal forgiveness. Yes, even God must be forgiven.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

More Than A Tad Disingenuous

Trey Smith

I personally found the president’s inaugural speech not just insipid, but disgusting. It reached its gut-churning nadir near the end where he said:

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war...We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear...And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

As he spoke these uplifting phrases, US factories were cranking out, under the terms of billion-dollar Pentagon contracts, fleets of drone aircraft that daily are raining explosives down on innocent men, women and children in countries that the US is not even at war with. Most of those drone attacks are personally approved by our Nobel Peace Laureate president, who has claimed the right -- unchallenged by either Congress or the Judiciary -- to order the liquidation of anyone he deems to be a terrorist (including American citizens), as well as those, even children, who happen to be in the vicinity of such a person. Of the 362 drone strikes in Pakistan to date, 310 were launched during the period Obama has been commander in chief.

The result of this policy of state terrorism has been a wretched, criminal slaughter of children -- a slaughter that has been hidden from view, and denied wholesale by the Pentagon and the president. Over 3000 people have been killed, the vast majority of them non-combatant "collateral damage" deaths. Over 172 of these have reportedly been children.
~ from Hey, Hey, Barack! What Do You Say? How Many Kids Have You Killed Today? by Dave Lindorff ~

I really don't have much to add here. As I've written many times before, actions speak louder than words. In this case, the President's words and actions don't match up.

It's not even close!

Matthew Modine's "Jesus Was a Commie"

I found this video short very moving and I wholeheartedly agree with the premise.

Looking Out by Looking In

Trey Smith

In my 9:45 am post, I talked about my vision for America. To be frank, it's not so much a particular vision for America, but for the whole world. (Tomorrow morning I will feature a video short produced by actor Matthew Modine, Jesus Was a Commie, that pretty much encapsulates a vision for the world that I agree with.)  There is nothing wrong with having ideals; it gives us something to aim for. There's also nothing wrong with having a vision for humanity.

But as the Taoist sages pointed out -- sages from other belief systems have made this same point too -- before we can work on the macrocosm, we must focus on the microcosm. To put this in the popular vernacular, we must be the change we seek.

For example, if I believe the world needs to be a more just place, I need to endeavor to be fair in ALL my dealings with others. If I believe we must embrace peace, then I must endeavor to be peaceful in all my interactions. If I cannot succeed in these aims, who I am to chastise the world?

This is THE task before each of us -- learning how to be loving, compassionate and humane in all we say, think and do. When it gets right down to it, we shouldn't worry about whether or not anyone else lives this way. I can't make you conform to my vision any more than you can make me conform to yours. In fact, trying to foist love or compassion on anyone is to thwart it at the very outset.

Some will protest that one life that embraces the essence of Tao (or whatever you want to call it) is a like a drop in the bucket and won't make a hill of beans worth of difference in the overall scheme of things. I think that analysis is not correct. In my view, every life and every moment does make a difference. Often, we are not cognizant of the ripples we send out from our center, but they are there, nonetheless.

One humane individual changes the world for the better. The only way I can prove this is by being that individual. It's far easier to hope that someone else will take up the mantle, but that's a surefire formula to insure that no one takes it up. So, it needs to be me.

The question is: Will I?

Global Responsibility

Scott Bradley

I recently listened to a conference call talk by James O'Dea, a leading advocate for peace, in which he said (perhaps as a quote): "Inner peace is a global responsibility." This is a statement with deep spiritual implications. If world peace is something we value and something for which we feel a certain personal responsibility, then it begins in the heart of the would be peacemaker. Only those who know inner peace can truly bring peace to the world.

This has its obvious cause and effect relationship; being peace, one brings peace. But there is something else here that touches on that Daoist belief that the harmony of a sage somehow influences a larger communal context without any direct agency. This belief is something to which I feel inclined to give assent, but also hesitate to proclaim, simply because it would seem to require belief. Nevertheless, it points to a spiritual interconnectedness that we not only experience in our guts, but to which science has begun to tilt. For my part, it is not necessary, in any event, to categorically affirm this possible reality since affirmation or denial does not change what actually happens, and such an intentional and purpose-driven inclination to self-cultivation would, from the Daoist perspective, be counter-productive in any case.

A sense of "global responsibility", whatever its focus may be, begins with a sense of personal responsibility with regard to one's own being-in-the-world. Being of skeptical disposition, however, for me the question immediately arises: From whence comes this sense of global responsibility, or even of responsibility to cultivate one's own peace? For if it is founded in some religious moral imperative wearing the garb of new age sensibilities, I think it foreign to the way of spontaneity, of letting life itself have its way.

"Responsibility", in the context of the traditions to which this blog addresses itself, immediately conjures up visions of the Confucianism which Zhuangzi recognized as an impediment to both personal and communal cultivation. The imposition of 'morality' from without can only stifle the growth of the moral sense within. The Zhuangzian vision of "responsibility" is of an expression of one's innate humanity and can only be authentic when experienced as such. That that sense of responsibility does arise seems clear, but we must remain careful not to externalize and codify it, and thereby render it inauthentic once again.

It might seem like an unnecessary splitting of hairs to make this distinction between an imposed and an arising sense of responsibility since we end up with responsibility in either case, but we need to remember Nietzsche's critique of morality and the death of God in this regard: it is we who brought nihilism into the world by virtue of our having grounded truth and morality in another, supposedly 'truer' world than the one to which we actually belong. Not only does an imposed sense of responsibility result in actions counter to the values espoused ("fighting for peace"), but it sets us up for a fall into complete disenchantment with any action at all.

All this having been said, when we discover in ourselves the life-expressive impetus toward inner and global peace, we affirm from the heart that "inner peace is a global responsibility".

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Imagine John Lennon Always at Peace?

Ta-Wan

I just had a bit of a YouTube indulgence watching various things about John Lennon and related stuff. I realized I'd been quite influenced by his words during my life, perhaps a little by hearing him talk, but more by my Dad being a huge fan and my hearing his lyrics daily all my life. Many of the things I say, he used to say, but, of course, he said some rubbish and I write nearly 98% rubbish, so we differ a little.

I just got to thinking about his 'Give Peace a Chance' idea and how he, as an Idealist sort of philosopher, said [roughly] "Hey, you're all pushing for peace or some other goal in the future and it's not working, why don't we just have peace now?"

Of course this is brilliant and I thought, 'you know, I agree 100%, I'm going to get active and do some art and street protests, humorously hopefully...' and then I stopped in my tracks.

I realized the obvious. I just looked at myself, and at him, and at the world - we are not entirely peaceful beings. If I am occasionally terse, irritable, or so on, but accept that as the way things are, then I can't really ask any more of the world than I do of myself. At any one time with our vast population, someone at some time, nay someone all of the time, will be quite grumpy - we may say billions at a time.

I'm not a murder or a rapist, nor do I fight or carry weapons. I am a pacifist vegetarian, peace loving hippy; a monk by comparison to those who wager war or brawl in the street. Yet people like that, of course, exist, so at any one time terrible stuff can be going on. Now I offer my philosophies on life about how 'life is this and that and we need not fight or have trouble' but how many people do you know who outright share your own personal philosophies? Zero - if we count word for word agreement. People like things just their way, friends may be similar, but not identical. So, as I Idealize over a world of peace and occasional grumps (just for the necessary contrast), then I cannot be too surprised that someone wishes for a world where they can do exactly as they please, even if that be murder.

Of course, the slogan comes off as a little less catchy now:

"Give peace a chance, and give murder a chance too, if you're so inclined"

You can check out Ta-Wan's other musings here.

Hot Under the Collar

Trey Smith

For the second time today, I'm going to sing the plaudits of Glenn Greenwald! His latest column is a gem. He aptly points out that the primary reason that candidate Ron Paul riles up so many progressive supporters of Barack Obama is that, on many issues, the Republican Paul supports the progressive position far better than their own candidate!

This is not to suggest that Ron Paul is the poster child of progressive values. Some of his positions -- like on the issue of race -- are dreadful. But on most of the issues that progressives hold dear (see Greenwald's article for a long list), Paul is far more progressive than the president.

Needless to say, this fact makes a lot of people squirm. They don't want to be reminded of it and, as long as Ron Paul continues to be at or near the top of the GOP polls, they have to put up with Barack Obama not being able to paint himself as the genuinely liberal candidate.

Below is a superb political ad from Ron Paul campaign. If you saw it and it didn't reference Ron Paul, I bet most progressives would cheer and swear allegiance to whatever candidate was behind it.

Afternoon Matinee: A People's History, Part 30

Afternoon Matinee: A People's History, Part 29

Afternoon Matinee: A People's History, Part 28

Repost: Peace on Earth...Today

Trey Smith
Original post date: 12/25/05

Two of the enduring themes throughout the traditional Christmas season are 1) Peace on Earth and 2) Goodwill toward all. It'’s truly unfortunate that, as we look around the world today, human society seems to be in short supply of both. To be certain, neither aim is completely missing, but, owing to an overall analysis, we all are falling miserably short of the desired targets.

The most surprising aspect of our failure is that success is within our own power. It's not that we CAN'T live peaceably and respectfully, but that we choose not to. We, as individuals and as nations, have chosen to wage war and to treat others in negative and destructive ways.

For example, today each of us could decide that there will be no war, now or in the future. If called upon to fight by our political leaders, we can simply refuse. Really, if a bunch of leaders throughout the world decided to have a war and no one signed up to fight it, the war would never take place.

I know that many people will argue that there are bad people in the world (i.e., criminals, sexual predators, terrorists) and that to refuse to wage war would then open up the planet to domination by such people.

My response is that there's a chasm of difference between aggressively waging war and defending one's family or country against the aggression of others. Malcolm X made this point as does Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching. It's one thing to defend oneself to defuse an attack (redirecting the force of the attacker to neutralize him) and quite another to escalate the violence into an ongoing conflict.

So, one could accurately support genuine defense as a method for dealing with physical aggression. In time, as more and more aggressors found that their own violent power was turned back onto itself, aggression itself would die away and we would be that much closer to the ideal of peace on earth.

Of course, there is a second method for dealing with aggression, one chosen by Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. When each was attacked by the people of their day, each chose to turn the other cheek. Each chose an act of ultimate bravery --– looking injury and death square in the face and consciously choosing not to strike back.

These three figures (and countless others) intuitively understood that aggression cannot defeat a peaceful spirit. A person's freedom can be withheld. Their name can be vilified. They can be mocked and spit upon. Their bodies can be desecrated and destroyed. But none of these things is stronger than the spirit of love, goodwill and peace.

Today we each have a choice to make. It's a personal choice wholly independent of anyone or anything else. We can decide that we will be brokers of peace. Yes, we can each decide that in OUR individual worlds there WILL be peace on earth and goodwill toward all.

Whitewashing a Black Icon

President Obama gave an eloquent speech at the Martin Luther King Memorial Dedication, but he shrank King to suit his own purposes.

He focused on the convenient King — the “I Have a Dream” King — and he touched on King’s commitment to economic justice. But he omitted the pastor’s role in opposing militarism and imperialism. He minimized King, the champion of peace, and he not only didn’t mention that King envisioned a world beyond nationalism; Obama actually used the occasion to extol America’s greatness.
~ from Obama Shrinks Martin Luther King at Memorial Dedication by Matthew Rothschild ~

It is more than ironic that a black icon of the civil rights movement has been so embraced by polite white society. Just like Malcolm X, King's legacy has been truncated to match with prevailing sensibilities.

Both men are remembered for their early years of activism -- King positively and Malcolm X negatively -- because the evolution in their thought makes white progressives uncomfortable. It's one thing to lionize them for their opposition to American apartheid because we supposedly slew that dragon eons ago -- yeh, right! -- but, since the US continues to be gripped within the clutches of the military-industrial complex, that portion of their message still strikes too close to home!!

It's even more ironic -- in some ways, not others -- that the nation's first black president would invoke the same narrow view of Dr. King.

NOT the Way To Peace

The Obama administration has announced plans to sell $53 million worth of military equipment to Bahrain just months after the Gulf state brutally cracked down on Shiite protesters. The proposed sale includes bunker buster missiles, armored vehicles and wire-guided missiles.
~ from U.S. to Sell Bahrain $53 Million in Military Equipment Following Brutal Crackdown via Democracy Now! ~

The United States consolidated its domination of a shrinking global arms market in 2010, signing 21.3 billion dollars in new weapons orders with foreign countries, according to the latest edition of an annual report on conventional weapons transfers by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Washington's total actually marked a slight decline in orders from 2009. But, because total global arms sales last year fell sharply – nearly 40 percent – from their 2009 level of 65 billion dollars, the U.S. market share rose steeply, from 35 percent in 2009 to nearly 53 percent in 2010.

The U.S. also ranked first in the value of actual arms deliveries in 2010, supplying foreign clients with some 12 billion dollars worth of weapons, or more than a third of the 35 billion dollars in global arms deliveries last year, according to the report. It was the eighth year in a row that Washington led the world in global arms deliveries.
~ from U.S. Consolidated Domination of Global Arms Market in 2010 by Jim Lobe ~

Words are empty when your actions don't match up. For the past three years, Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama has talked a good game about his "audacious hope" for a peaceful world. But how can a US President promote peace by arming much of the world with advanced and sophisticated weaponry?

How can he have ANY hope for a peaceful resolution in Bahrain, if he sends the very arms that will be used to put down the mostly peaceful protests?

It's pure greed and an unhealthy dose of insanity!!!

So Boring

Peace may be good for children and other living things, but it's boring for generals – especially politically ambitious ones – and bad for bomb manufacturers.
~ from Iraq Withdrawal? Don’t Take It to the Bank by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis ~

When it gets right down to it, Benjamin and Davis have coyly identified the chief hurdle to peace. Not only is peace boring for a certain segment of any population, it is far less profitable!

Anytime there is war -- whether you call it that or not -- there are war profiteers. The people and corporations who profit from war don't want to see these enormous profits go away and so they beat the drum for more war. They invent phantoms and specters to fear. They talk up remote or nonexistent threats as if the nation could be crippled at any moment. They pressure government leaders by promising to withhold support -- monetary or otherwise -- if those leaders don't do their bidding.

This is as true for the United States as it is for any "terrorist" organization. You should know that, when hostilities breakout, some people are smiling big time. It means their money train has arrived at the station and they are loath to allow it to leave.

Nightmare on Main Street

When most Americans face the nightmare before us, when they realize the irreversible devastation unleashed on the ecosystem and the economic misery from which they cannot escape, violence will have a broad and terrifying appeal. Those of us who demand a return to the rule of law and remain steadfast to nonviolence will find ourselves cast aside — the useful idiots Lenin so despised.
~ from Ralph Nader Is Tired of Running for President by Chris Hedges ~

As is usual, this week's column by Hedges is a good one! However, for my purposes this morning, I want to focus on these two brief sentences.

One aspect of the civil rights movement that Martin Luther King, Jr., worked tirelessly against was the specter of violence within some factions of the movement itself. He continually warned America's leaders that, if they refused to deal with nonviolent protesters in a respectful and just manner, there were many others that were more than willing to utilize violence to make their voices heard. After his assassination, his prediction came to horrible fruition!

We stand at a similar crossroads today. While the nonviolent movement pales in comparison to that of the 1960s, it would behoove our leaders -- provided they actually give a damn -- to learn from recent history. If they follow through with their threat to eviscerate the portion of the federal budget that serves the many -- while leaving untouched or increasing the portion that benefits the few -- the country may explode in an orgy of indiscriminate violence.

When people come to realize in direct and concrete terms that their country has been sold out from under their feet, I shudder to think how many people will react. When voting doesn't do any good and peaceful protests are met with an apathetic yawn, in many people's eyes, unmitigated violence will be the only recourse.

As Hedges points out in his essay, those of us who call for determined resistance through nonviolent means will be drowned out by a cacophony of rabble-rousers -- some of which will be demagogues who merely want to profit from the misery of their brethren!

Far Over the Line

The Obama administration appears to have given a green light to an Israeli attack on an unarmed flotilla carrying peace and human rights activists — including a vessel with 50 Americans on board — bound for the besieged Gaza Strip. At a press conference on June 24, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the flotilla organized by the Free Gaza Campaign by saying it would "provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."

Clinton did not explain why a country had “the right to defend themselves” against ships which are clearly no threat. Not only have organizers of the flotilla gone to great steps to ensure are there no weapons on board, the only cargo bound for Gaza on the U.S. ship are letters of solidarity to the Palestinians in that besieged enclave who have suffered under devastating Israeli bombardments, a crippling blockade, and a right-wing Islamist government. Nor did Clinton explain why the State Department suddenly considers the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of the port of Gaza to be “Israeli waters,” when the entire international community recognizes Israeli territorial waters as being well to the northeast of the ships’ intended route.
~ from Washington Okays Attack on Unarmed U.S. Ship by Stephen Zunes ~

Every time I read a story of this nature, it stupefies me that, on both sides of the mainstream political aisle, President Obama is viewed as a liberal or, by some, a socialist! Actions like this are more in line with Ronald Reagan or George Bush II. Can you imagine FDR, JFK or LBJ advancing this kind of policy rationale?

What gets me even more is that so many progressive-minded citizens see Obama as one of them. How can this be for a president who

• allows the inhumane treatment of an American citizen not charged with a crime -- Bradley Manning -- to go on for nearly ten months?
• authorizes the assassination of an American citizen who has no legal charges pending against him?
• targets whistleblowers who expose corruption and deceit at the highest echelons of government?
• surrounds himself with big business Wall Street types to guide the nation's economic policies?
• goes off to war without bothering to seek Congressional approval as stipulated in the US Constitution?
• sanctions torture, secret prisons, wiretapping, and widespread spying on citizens and foreigners alike?

This very partial list does not point to a leader who is progressive at all! These are conservative and reactionary positions. If times were a bit different today, Barack Obama would make an excellent choice for the REPUBLICAN nominee for President in 2012.

Take It Back

In 2009, for some inexplicable reason, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It didn't make a lick of sense then and it certainly makes no sense now!

Since accepting the award, Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan. He authorized the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and others, including an American citizen. He has increased the use of drone aircraft in Pakistan which has led to countless deaths of civilians. He has led the NATO attack against Libya. And now, according to Glenn Greenwald, he is pursuing another illegal war in Yemen.

Add to this the fact that his administration has done little to pressure the governments in Bahrain or Syria to quit murdering peaceful protesters and you see the visage of a president who is warlike, not a peace advocate.

If he was as principled as he would like us to believe, he would give back the Peace Prize of his own accord. That is very unlikely to happen, so I think we should start a people's campaign to request that the Nobel Committee rescind the award themselves. If he is allowed to go down in the annals of history as an advocate for peace, it denudes the word of any substantive meaning.

I mean, really. If he gets to keep it, why not posthumously award one to Attila the Hun or hand one out to George W. Bush?

Rules of the Road

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t...Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.
~ from Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech upon receipt of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ~

What exactly are the "rules of the road" when it comes to warfare? What are these nebulous standards he speaks of? When one considers that the Obama administration is waging covert "wars" in Pakistan and Yemen as well as escalating the war in Afghanistan, it would seem that the rules and standards are arbitrary and illegitimate.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength.

How can the president of a nation that employs depleted uranium in much of its weaponry and utilizes drone aircraft that seems to kill as many civilians as supposed "terrorists," talk seriously about "rules of conduct?"

Back in 2009, I was dumbstruck when it was announced that our president -- of all people -- was being awarded the p-e-a-c-e prize. I continue to be dumbstruck as this same president has gotten us into yet another military escapade. It defies all credulity to believe that this nation is an ambassador for peace. We have initiated and remained involved in more armed conflicts this century than any other country I know of.

When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, that made sense. King dedicated his life to nonviolence.

But Barack Obama?

Against War

Over the years, mainstream America has sought to whitewash the legacy of Dr. King. In his last two or three years, he moved beyond solely the fight for civil rights to include economic justice, an opposition to war and justice for all. This sermon was delivered about one year before his murder.

The truths he spoke of then could just as easily apply to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen today.

Though I don't share King's religious convictions, I do share his dedication to speak out against violence and injustice wherever it is found.