START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
This thread is displayed with the most recent posts first.
 July 21, 2009 9:22 AM

In Honor of Walter Cronkite Walter Cronkite interview with Dennis Kucinich - Department of Peace Dear Friends, My generation came of age at a time when Walter Cronkite was the name in American culture synonymous with credibility and respect. His role in our society transcended his TV news anchor position. His pronouncements on the events of our time were like a slow rolling thunder delivered from an electronic Mount Olympus. When he said ‘and that's the way it is,' we believed his every word because his compassion, dignity and respect merited our trust. In his later years, Walter Cronkite became a powerful spokesperson for world peace. I was humbled to share a platform with him at an event sponsored by the Peace Alliance. Please continue to rally support for our legislation to create a cabinet level Department of Peace, HR808, which now has 70 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. Thank you.

see Dennis and Cronkite you tube here  >>>


 [ send green star]
 May 24, 2008 5:03 AM

Farm Sanctuary Gala Exclusive: Dennis Kucinich’s Plan For Peace The only vegan in congress Filed under: animals, politics — parrish @ 1:28 pm

This week Ecorazzi is continuing our coverage of the 2008 Farm Sanctuary Galaas we offer you exclusive interviews with some wonderful celebrities we chatted with. So far we’ve given you words from Melissa Rivers, Swoosie Kurtz, Rory Freedmanand Russell Simmons. And now let’s get political with a few thoughts from Dennis Kucinich!

Dennis Kucinich is the only vegan in congress and a continuous supporter of animal rights and the Farm Sanctuary. As you can imagine, he was a super hot guest and not easy to pull away. However, when everyone went downstairs to eat dinner I stayed perched in the VIP lounge scanning the crowd for exciting tid-bits! At one point I saw Dennis sneak away from his table and visit the silent auction area and I knew that was my chance! So I swooped down, introduced myself (and my tape recorder…her name is Molly) and began the interview. Enjoy!

Parrish: First off, let me just say I’m a huge fan of yours and think that the examples you set in congress are totally inspiring. Tell me about what brings you here tonight?

Dennis Kucinich: Well I’m always looking for opportunities in the congress to protect farm animals. Right now we’re having an investigation in my sub-committee of a plant in California that was actually processing downed animals. So I’m investigating that right now. Years ago I was responsible for a bill that stopped importation of products from China that contained dog and cat fur that came from live dogs and cats. The whole idea of being involved with an animal rights effort is to show that all living creatures deserve respect. If we show that respect throughout our entire ecology then perhaps that’s the path to peace.

P: Wow! I absolutely agree with you. Now I know that you’re vegan. How long has that been for you?

DK: I’ve been vegan since 1995.

P: And what inspired it?

DK: You know I was in a relationship where I met a woman who was vegan and so I tried it and what I was surprised to learn is that I immediately experienced some beneficial health effects and together with Chinese medicine I was cured of Crohn’s.

P: That’s really amazing.

DK: Isn’t it?

P: Well listen I know I kind of sidetracked you over here so I’ll let you get back to dinner. Is there anything else you want our readers to know?

DK: Well, that my website is Kucinich.US. Please check it out.

P: Thanks again for your time congressman.

 [ send green star]
 May 24, 2008 5:00 AM

Farm Sanctuary Gala Exclusive: Dennis Kucinich’s Plan For Peace

 [ send green star]
City backs federal Department of Peace April 15, 2008 12:59 PM

Issue #20.16 :: 04/15/2008 - 04/21/2008
City backs federal Department of Peace

Asks Goode to co-sponsor with Kucinich


What was the line that Claire from “Six Feet Under” uttered about her languishing high school compatriots? “I wish that just once people wouldn’t act like the clichés that they are.”

Well, file this resolution from the City of Charlottesville in the Claire Fisher folder: On April 7, City Council passed a resolution supporting the creation of a federal Department of Peace and Nonviolence. The resolution is in support of federal House Resolution 808, introduced by—let’s just check the Fisher folder one more time—Dennis Kucinich.

If passed by a Democratic Congress that has failed for nearly two years to pull out of a war that the majority of Americans oppose, the legislation would create a cabinet-level department that would advise the President on both domestic and international issues. The city, via resolution, is urging Virgil Goode to partner with Kucinich and co-sponsor HR 808, a collaboration that, if it happens, may well cause the Capitol to implode in some sort of space-time continuum hullabaloo.

John Warner and Jim Webb are also urged to introduce a companion bill into the Senate.

The proposed legislation would develop new programs to address domestic violence, school violence, gang violence, guns, racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays, the Old Testament and the entire expanse of human history.

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to

 [ send green star]
maybe you could start a new link or change reading order November 09, 2007 9:54 AM

it is getting really long and would be read better with newer posts first.. -- maybe ~

 [ send green star]
Care2 Department of Peace group September 12, 2007 8:24 PM

Here's the link for the Department of Peace & Nonviolence Group I recently joined & became a co-host too.


P.S. I hope you join!
 [ send green star]
Another Path to Peace: The Case for Kucinich, continued April 18, 2007 9:58 AM has done a poll as well. And it polled its members immediately after posting audio and transcripts of each of the candidates answering questions about the Iraq War. Kucinich finished third with 17% behind Obama's 28% and Edwards' 25%. Polling only people who attended a house party to listen to the interviews, the result didn't change much for Kucinich, 16%, or Edwards, 25%. But Obama dropped to 18% and Richardson jumped into the mix at 21%. From these unscientific polls, we can draw the following tentative conclusions: 1.-The race is still wide open. 2.-The indisputable fact one week is overturned the next and forgotten 3.-Kucinich does better when Iraq is the topic or the peace movement is the audience (and Iraq will be the topic, and the peace movement is now a majority of Americans) 4.-Obama loses some of his glow when he tries to answer a few serious questions. If you don't know Dennis Kucinich, watch him in this recent interview on CNN: Kucinich argued against the war prior to the vote to authorize it, published his case against it, helped persuade his colleagues to vote No, voted No, and sued the President to try to prevent the war. He proposed a detailed plan to end the war over three years ago, a plan that is largely still right and embodied in his bill, HR 1234. He has voted against every new funding bill for the war, including the recent Supplemental. He supports using the power of the purse to end the war. He opposes any attack on Iran and proposes formally forswearing the use of so-called preventive war. He has proposed the creation of a Department of Peace to address international and domestic violence. He would ban the weaponization of space and work for nuclear disarmament. His chief tool would be diplomacy, not death. We might persuade one of the other candidates to move toward one or more of these anti-war positions, but their change of heart will not be based in the deep understanding of peace and violence that drives Dennis Kucinich. And we will almost certainly never persuade any of them to take Kucinich's position in favor of slashing wasteful Pentagon spending in order to fund useful non-military projects. Only Kucinich would move us toward an economy not driven by war. And, ultimately, that is the only way we'll prevent future wars. Wow. Wonderful. But is that how to win the swing voters? Well, did you ever wonder why the Republicans seem so much less obsessed with swing voters? Chris Bowers has presented a strong case that these mythical creatures do not actually exist. [ ] Only 4.7% of voters changed their mind during the last election from Bush to Kerry or Kerry to Bush. Kerry may have been swiftboated, but hardly anyone changed their mind from backing Kerry to backing Bush. What did happen, of course, is that millions of supporters of Kerry (and of Bush too) didn't bother to vote or to register to vote. What would it take for the Democrats to register and turn out likely Democratic voters in sufficient numbers to beat election fraud? It would take a candidate who wasn't for the war before he was against it. The mushy middle turns potential voters away. There are peace activists who favor the creation of a third party, and who argue against backing Kucinich because they think he'll lose and then endorse a less desirable candidate. But Kucinich is less likely to lose if those who agree with him support him. Supporting him now will serve primarily to help end the war prior to the election. And supporting Kucinich will not make the task of building a third party any more or less daunting. A third-party peace candidate would need everything Kucinich has and much more in qualifications, and much, much more in money in order to have a chance. And here's something interesting about Kucinich. He supports all the reforms to our election and campaign finance systems that would make it possible for third parties to compete, and he does not go back on his word after he wins elections. When Kucinich was elected mayor of Cleveland at the age of 31 on a promise not to privatize the city's electricity, he stuck to his word in the face of an all-out assault from the city's media and corporate rulers. When his decision was vindicated years later by the fortune he'd saved the city, he re-entered politics. When the Democratic leadership pulled out every trick to pressure congress members to vote for the Supplemental spending bill that now sits in conference committee, Kucinich voted no. Efforts to build decent third parties like the Green Party are to be applauded, but backing Kucinich is one way to do that. Check out Kucinich's substantive and specific positions on a hundred and one issues facing this country: Let's try a new approach to peace. Go here and click on the left side of the website to make a contribution. It's the easiest and the most effective step for peace any of us can take right now: ____ David Swanson is the Washington Director of and co-founder of the coalition, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and of the Backbone Campaign. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. In April 2007, Swanson began consulting part-time for Kucinich for President 2008. His website is *fair use*  [ send green star]
Another Path to Peace: The Case for Kucinich April 18, 2007 9:55 AM April 17, 2007 at 23:54:06 Another Path to Peace: The Case for Kucinich by David Swanson The Democratic leadership in Congress wants the war to be around in 2008 so that a Democrat can win the White House by "opposing" the war. Congressman Rahm Emanuel has explained this to the Washington Post. The ONLY way to convince the top Democrats that this calculation is wrong is to promote in the presidential primary the only candidate who is trying in every way possible to end the war now. If we do that, the Democrats will understand that they cannot wait until after November of 2008 to end the war. We've tried Congressional elections. We won a huge mandate for peace and resistance to Bush-Cheney. Then the White House escalated the war, and Congress played along. We've tried marching. On January 27th a half a million people encircled the U.S. Capitol demanding peace. We've tried lobbying, public forums, protests, sit-ins, counter-recruitment, and refusal to serve. We've tried media activism and exposure of the lies and the crimes that make up the war. We could always do more, and we should do more of all of these things. And what we have done has prevented worse horrors and won minor victories and grounds for hope. There is always hope. But we have not yet tried using a presidential election to achieve peace. The media claims that it is now election season. Coverage of the November 2008 presidential election gives the impression that the day of the vote is almost upon us. This cheap journalism is a massive drain on citizen participation in our democracy, most of which should have nothing to do with elections. But what the media says in this matter goes, and it is therefore undeniably election season. And yet, we have not been informed and never will be informed what the candidates in this election would do if elected. The media stories are all about money, polls, and fluff. But that fact actually makes things easier for us. We don't have to leave our homes to have a major impact on the movement for peace. If the 500,000 people who marched, in D.C. alone, in January were to each give (or in the case of children ask their parents to give) $50 to the presidential campaign of the only candidate who voted against the war, has voted against funding it, favors ending it immediately, and opposes an attack on Iran, that $25 million (in unprecedented and unimaginable small donations) would be the top news story for months. And whether or not it determined the Democratic nominee, and whether or not we even want it to do so, it would have a decisive impact on the positions of all the candidates, not to mention members of Congress. They ALL speak the language of the dollar. Do you think John Edwards is handsome and wish he'd oppose an attack on Iran and be willing to join the majority of Americans on more issues? Then back Kucinich now. Do you think Barack Obama makes an attractive blank slate and wish he'd stop voting to fund the war, support ending it, and take a nuclear attack on Iran off the table? Get behind Kucinich right away. Are you impressed by Hillary Clinton and wish she'd admit she voted wrong, stop funding the war, support ending it, and oppose a new aggressive war on Iran? You get the idea. Do it with a $100 donation here: The money will drive the polls, which will drive the debate in Congress and force real action. Dennis Kucinich is very far behind the first few candidates at this ridiculously early stage in both fundraising and in polls, including the polls done by the corporate media and the unscientific polls done by liberal websites tied to the Democratic Party. DailyKos has John Edwards at 42%, Barack Obama at 25%, Bill Richardson 13%, Hillary Clinton 3%, and Kucinich 2%. MyDD has similar results: Edwards 43%, Obama 34%, Richardson 8%, Clinton 4%, and 1% each for Kucinich, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd. I suspect that the voters on these sites dislike Clinton for all the right reasons, and above all for her support of the war. But I'm certain they oppose Kucinich for all of the wrong reasons (the media doesn't cover him, he's short, he agrees with us TOO much). But the media covers money, so we know how to handle that. And while Kucinich's positions haven't changed much in four years, Americans' opinions have changed by moving in his direction on the war, on health care, and on trade. Kucinich's height may be hard to change, but he doesn't fall off everything he rides, give inappropriate shoulder massages, or shoot his buddies in the face. Democracy for America is a grassroots group closely tied to the Democratic Party and born out of Howard Dean's presidential campaign, many of the supporters of which favored positions like those of Kucinich. In DFA's poll results, Kucinich comes in third with 10%, behind Obama's 28% and Edwards' 24%. is an activist group that more often challenges the positions of the Democratic leadership, and more often tells people what progressive Congress Members like Kucinich are doing. has been fully engaged in the peace movement. In its poll Kucinich comes in second with 24% behind Edwards' 41%. (more)  [ send green star]
B 4 Peace Position Paper for Sharing March 20, 2007 10:49 AM

B 4 Peace Position Paper for Sharing Patrick
Please visit this link, download or print this page, and share this Peace Position Statement from Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio

 [ send green star]
Why Can't We Talk about Peace in Public? March 02, 2007 5:17 PM

But the letter from this Marine pilot is something different. What worries me about it is this unabashed glee in killing people from high altitudes might not be a psychiatric aberration, but an inevitable consequence of the entire structure of our economy, which is based heavily on government spending in the area of high-technology defense manufacturing. When Spinney focuses on this gruesome and bloody letter from a single Marine pilot, he's not ripping an individual soldier but showing graphically how the tail has, by now, wagged the whole dog -- how a society whose economy is based on hi-tech defense spending will first tend to gravitate inexorably toward hi-tech defense solutions to policy problems, and then over time will raise whole generations instilled with an implicit belief in and enthusiasm for such lunacies as the "surgical strike." Here's how Spinney put it: We all know that the American Way of War is to use our technology to pour firepower on the enemy from a safe distance. Implicit in this is the central myth of precision bombardment that dates back to at least to the Norden Bombsight in World War II ... Of course this is all hogwash, as the conduct of the Iraq War has proven once again. Real war is always uncertain and messy and bloody and wasteful and accompanied by profound psychological and moral effects. But these preposterous theories are central to the American Way of War, because they justify the maintenance of a high cost hi-tech military which is so essential to the welfare of the parasitic political economy of the military-industrial-congressional complex that is now seamlessly embedded in our political culture. The reason I'm even writing about Spinney's letter this week is that we're now just seeing come into focus the first outlines of the rhetorical parameters for the 2008 presidential campaign. Among other things, I'm seeing a lot of TV commentators pound home the theme that the Democratic party needs to shed its reputation for "pacifism." An article I saw about Rudy Giuliani last week saluted the former mayor for being sensible on Iraq without being a "peacenik." After four years of Iraq, we still can't talk about peace in public! This evil bullshit has been buried in the commercial media's descriptive campaign language seemingly forever by now, but it may be time -- in the wake of this Iraq disaster -- to start thinking about where it comes from and what effect it may have on the national psyche. I believe that Marine pilot is driven by the same forces that render the presidential candidacy of someone like Dennis Kucinich impossible in America. A country that feeds itself through the manufacture of war technology is bound to view peace, nonviolence and mercy as seditious concepts. It will create policies first and then people to fit its machines, finding wars to fight and creating killers to fight them. If that's true of us, and I think it is, our troubles won't be over even if someone brings the Iraq war to an end. We'll be treating the symptom and not the disease. And the reason our elections are a sham is that the disease is never on the table. Excepting the occasional Kucinich, no one in either party is interested in trying to change who we are, no matter how sick we become. Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone. © 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: *fair use*  [ send green star]
Why Can't We Talk about Peace in Public? March 02, 2007 5:16 PM By Matt Taibbi, Posted on February 28, 2007, Printed on March 2, 2007 "The fellas from 121 started showing up the other day. It's starting to sink in... I'll have to go home, the opportunities to kill these %#&!*% is rapidly coming to an end. Like a hobby I'll never get to practice again. It's not a great war, but it's the only one we've got. God, I do love killing these bastards. ... Morale is high, the Marines can smell the barn. It's hard to keep them focused. I still have 20 days of kill these motherfuckers, so I don't wanna take even one day off. " -- letter home from an unnamed Marine F/A -18 pilot in Iraq. The above letter arrived in my inbox via an email circular sent by an acquaintance of mine, a defense analyst and former congressional aide named Winslow Wheeler. It came alongside a pained commentary by another former Pentagon analyst named Franklin (Chuck) Spinney, who is probably best known for the famous "Spinney report" of the mid-'80s which exposed the waste and inefficiency of many hi-tech Defense Department projects. Spinney's career followed the classic whistleblower arc; after sending his courageous Jerry Maguire letter on Pentagon waste up the bureaucratic flagpole, he was nearly buried by his own bosses only to be saved from ignominy at the last minute by the intercession of Senator Chuck Grassley, who invited him to air his findings in Congress. Spinney ended up on the cover of Time magazine a week later and soon thereafter began a new career as a much sought-after expert on the inner workings of the military-industrial complex. Like another famous post-Watergate whistleblower, Karen Silkwood, Spinney ended up inspiring a Hollywood feature film -- although in this case no Oscars were forthcoming, as the key role in the lighthearted comedy The Pentagon Wars was played by Cary Elwes instead of Meryl Streep. Brutally, Kelsey Grammer also made an appearance as the film's heavy. Now retired and living in the Mediterranean, Spinney briefly returned to the States and somehow got hold of the above letter by a Marine pilot involved in close air support missions in Iraq. Spinney's commentary about the pilot ran as follows: Here is a "warrior" who brags about killing for killing's sake, but the people he kills are just spots on the ground that disappear in clouds of explosions. He describes the joy of war at a distance and sees nothing of its horrors. You won't find any descriptions of blood, broken limbs, trauma or destruction in this email. You won't even find reference to his own feelings of menace or fear -- not to mention their noble counterweights courage and esprit -- just braggadocio on the subject of killing. Of course, his targets are all insurgents: no sense of any human capacity for doubt on that point. ... Hopefully, the man who wrote this ghastly thing is an aberration and not at all representative of the men and women in our military. I searched the internet to see if anyone had anything to say about Spinney's commentary. There were only a few sites that mentioned it, but in this one he is predictably blasted by soldiers who viewed his comments as a betrayal. "I'm surprised at Spinney's outburst," writes one. "I would have thought that as an AF guy, he'd at least understand the emotion of a fighter pilot doing a CAS mission. I've enjoyed Spinney's views on Pentagon finances -- maybe he should stick with his area of expertise." "Spinney is pathetic!!!" writes another. "I'm a grunt, we get paid to kill and we do a damn good job. America has kept Marines around for that fact, and not because we look incredibly good in our dress blues." I'm always wary of these stories about American soldiers acting like hateful, mindlessly violent psychopaths in Iraq, though they're not exactly rare -- from Abu Ghraib of course, to a chilling video of a pilot pointlessly wasting a huge crowd of what appear to be civilians in Fallulah ("Oh, dude!" the pilot chuckles, after the explosion appears to kill dozens), to a gang of squids in the Gulf who lined up on an aircraft carrier deck in a formation that cleverly read "%#&!*% Iraq," to soldiers running over a cab driver's car with a tank because he was suspected of looting a few pieces of wood to stories about the use of napalm in Tallulah, and so on. It's not that I don't believe these stories, and not that I don't want to hear them. I'm just wary of sullying the debate over this war with a referendum on the behavior of young soldiers who have been placed in an impossible position, sent to fight in a strange and hostile place with no clear mission and no detectable strategy for securing peace or victory. In my mind, all the people in the Bush administration and in Congress and in the media who got these kids sent there in the first place have to be the first ones held responsible for whatever those kids do after being thrown into the fire. I just don't yet have the stomach to start pointing the finger at a bunch of teenagers and twenty-somethings who never should have been sent there in the first place. (MORE)  [ send green star]
Legislation Watch March 02, 2007 6:11 AM

BLOG | Posted 03/01/2007 @ 1:36pm
Legislation Watch

In 2001, Representative Dennis Kucinich ☼ introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence to "not only make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society, but to make war archaic," as he told Studs Terkel in an article for The Nation in 2002.

Six years later, H.R. 808 has 59 cosponsors – including Rep. Jim McDermott – who writes that the bill "embodies the dreams and aspirations of Americans to live in a nation that uses its great strength to support the cooperative efforts of people throughout the world to create peace." The legislation calls for $8 billion in annual funding – less than one month of spending on the Iraq War and in stark contrast to the $439 billion allocated to the military in the recent Bush budget.

The Department of Peace would develop policies and allocate resources to support cutting-edge approaches to issues like domestic violence, child abuse, violence in schools, and racial violence. McDermott writes, "Internationally, a Department of Peace will advise the president and Congress on the most innovative techniques to establish and promote peace among nations, and will research and analyze the root causes of war to help prevent conflicts from escalating to the point of violence."

Kucinich is a man who fights injustice wherever he finds it. "The American Revolution never really ended," he told Terkel. "It's a continuing process. I think we're approaching the revolution of hope. We have the country that makes it possible for people, if they've lost control of the government, to regain it in a peaceful way."

There is great depth to Kucinich's commitment to peace – a commitment that led him to speak out against the invasion of Iraq before it happened at a Martin Luther King Day celebration in 2003. In the same speech he renewed his call for a Department of Peace, saying, "Peace is a civil right, which makes other human rights possible. Peace is the precondition for our existence. Peace permits our continued existence."

At a time when our Defense Department might as well be called by its original name – the Department of War – Kucinich's vision of a Cabinet level-office devoted to non-violent conflict resolution is worth organizing around (and students should click here). Although it is highly unlikely that such a bill would be passed in the current Congress, a Department of Peace is something to strive for.

Kucinich has the opportunity to achieve something extraordinary by reframing the way we approach peace and security. His tenacity brings to mind the great Robert F. Kennedy (and George Bernard Shaw) quote: "Some men see things as they are and say ‘why?' I dream things that never were and say ‘why not?' "

*fair use*

 [ send green star]
Kristi Meisenbach Boylan: A U.S. peace czar? February 17, 2007 9:46 AM OPINION Kristi Meisenbach Boylan: A U.S. peace czar? We need a department focusing on violence at home 06:29 AM CST on Friday, February 16, 2007 I believe in the power of peace. Now before you grind your pencil to a nub or break your neck rushing to your computer to e-mail letters to the editor, let me explain. I'm not liberal. I don't wear tie-dye. And, yes, I'm from 'round here. I believe in free enterprise, the reduction of unnecessary federal bureaucracy, the power of our individual states – and peace. I just returned from a conference in Washington, where I lobbied for the establishment of a U.S. Department of Peace. The Peace Alliance, a group of more than 700 concerned citizens of diverse ages, races and backgrounds – and well represented by both political parties – hosted the conference to support HR 808. The bill, which calls for a Cabinet-level position to reduce violence in our country, was re-introduced in the House by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, last week. There were no marchers, sitters, Bush bashers or oddly dressed participants in sight. I didn't see a single handmade poster. What unites the group is palpable outrage at the skyrocketing cost of violence in the U.S. One of the participants put it succinctly when he said violence is bankrupting our country. Statistically, he's right. A recent World Health Organization report estimated the cost of interpersonal violence in the U.S. at $300 billion a year. And this excludes the costs of war. The peace bill is not about bringing the troops home or cutting funding to our servicemen and women. It's not just about what's going on "over there." The proposal addresses the violence in our children's classrooms more than activities overseas. The bill is designed to reduce domestic and gang violence. It addresses the issues of child abuse, elderly abuse and violence in our schools. It proposes efforts with the military to make sure that, in the event of war, we will be fully prepared to meet our enemies head on. It places a priority on welcoming back our servicemen and women with programs that will help them adjust comfortably to lives as productive civilians. The U.S. Department of Peace isn't a novel concept, nor is it a liberal idea. It was first suggested during George Washington's administration and has been introduced in Congress almost 100 times since our country's inception. I don't know how "peace" became such a dirty word, especially here in the conservative South. I do know that Democrats don't have a monopoly on it. Peace is an American touchstone. It's a common thread that connects all of us, regardless of party affiliation, and it addresses the very ideals that our country was founded on. When my daughter and I were in New York last year, we were waiting to visit Ellis Island. As the line started to move, people began pushing, and I heard the scared, broken-English voice of another mother behind me. "Stay close," she warned her child. "Americans are very aggressive." My heart sank. Americans aren't an aggressive bunch – neither are Texans; neither are Republicans. Despite what other parts of the world may think, Americans are generally a peaceful people. We may have aggressive moments, but as a whole, we value stability and order above all. Peace is patriotic. Call your representative and ask him or her to sign on as a co-sponsor of bill HR 808 to establish a U.S. Department of Peace. Writer Kristi Meisenbach Boylan lives in Parker. Her e-mail address is *fair use*  [ send green star]
Szymanski: We need a peace department February 16, 2007 6:00 AM Updated 6:45 AM on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Szymanski: We need a peace department By WALTER SZYMANSKI Special to the Eagle We need a U.S. Department of Peace. The authors of Leashing the Dogs of War, acclaimed as "the definitive volume on the sources of contemporary conflict and the array of possible responses to it," question whether it is possible to fight war and manage conflict at the same time. Their conclusion at the end is that peacemaking and conflict management are central for creating a less divided, less conflicted world - no matter the complexities and, at times, high odds against success. The book provides ample evidence that the international community - both its leading official actors and its non-official components - can check hostile adversaries of the international order and make peace at the same time. We are learning to leash the dogs of war. So, with respect to resolving domestic and international contentions, why are we not as willing to employ sophisticated ways of making peace as we are in using violence and waging war? We have expended prodigious amounts of money, time and creative energy in developing sophisticated weapons of war, such as laser-guided bombs that from a position miles away can be steered dead center down the smokestacks of an enemy, yet we have failed to use our ample resources to create and employ sophisticated techniques aimed at peaceful solutions to contentious issues. It seems we'd rather kill or maim someone's children, sisters, brothers and parents, killing and maiming members of our own families in the process, than to leave no stone unturned in an effort to resolve conflict without bloodshed. Why do we scoff at the idea of establishing a Cabinet-level U.S. Department of Peace, while at the same time we voluntarily send our children and other members of our families directly into the path of bullets and bombs? Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, speaking of his leadership during the Vietnam War, said, "We knew nothing about Vietnamese religion, psychology or culture - and we had no one to tell us." Yet here we are 32 years after our war on Vietnam ended and we are still using the same bloody paradigm of employing bombs and bullets to resolve conflicts. We arm our children and other members of our families in the military with all of the high-tech gadgets of waging war our country can imagine, but we haven't provided ourselves with a cabinet-level infrastructure for creating nonviolent solutions to international and domestic conflict. Domestically, a Department of Peace (legislation for which has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Dennis Kucinich) would be responsible for developing policies to effectively reduce the levels of our domestic violence, child abuse, violence in our schools, racial violence, mistreatment of the elderly and animal abuse, all of which are a national disgrace of the first magnitude. Internationally, a Department of Peace would develop policies and make recommendations to the president and Congress on the most sophisticated ideas and techniques regarding peace-creation among nations, including the protection of human rights. But establishing a Department of Peace and making peace a national priority is not going happen unless we all act to make it happen. What kind of world do we want for our families and communities? What possibly could be of greater support to our troops over the long haul than a sophisticated effort to make active duty on the battlefield less necessary? And most important at the moment, what are we going to do to help make peace a national priority and a major institution of the U.S. government? Are we just going to continue our current bloody and barbaric conflict-resolution model, or are we willing to stand up and be a voice for peace? • Walter Szymanski lives in Bryan. Readers may e-mail him at walt. *fair use*  [ send green star]
McPherson's Karr will lobby legislators for Peace Alliance January 27, 2007 1:46 PM Saturday, January 27, 2007 McPherson's Karr will lobby legislators for Peace Alliance By LISA LUCERO, Sentinel Staff Writer Published: Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:23 AM CST E-mail this story | Print this page McPherson's Annette Karr will be lobbying in Washington D.C. for the first time, starting Feb. 3. Karr, along with other members of The Peace Alliance, will try to influence U.S. legislators to pass the bill H.R. 3760, S. 1756, to form a cabinet-level Department of Peace. The bill was introduced in 2005 by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, former Cleveland mayor. Karr knew Kucinich when she had lived in Ohio while he was mayor. She will be reacquainted with him at the legislative session. “It's kind of a full-circle sort-of-a-thing for me,” she said. If the bill becomes a law, the Department of Peace will focus on reducing domestic and international violence. The department would provide assistance for city, county and state governments and teach violence prevention and mediation to America's school children. Other issues to be considered will be gang psychology, prison rehabilitation, peace-making efforts among conflicting cultures and developing complimentary approaches to ending violence. Seventy-five representatives and two senators will review the bill. The bill will be referred to the appropriate committee by either the U.S. Speaker of House or the presiding officer in the U.S. Senate. When the conference committee reaches an agreement, it is submitted to each chamber. Once the conference report is approved by the House and the Senate, the bill is forwarded to the President for reviewal. If the President signs the bill, it becomes a law. On Feb. 4, lobbyists will learn about appropriate lobbying methods and on the next day, they will visit with U.S. senators and representatives. The actual lobbying will take place Feb. 5. She believes that the U.S. legislature should really focus on peace. Karr said that many people believe the Department of Defense should handle the matter. “The fact-of-the-matter is that the Department of Defense has its own agenda,” she said. The approach to the bill is considered a proactive measure, she said. It does not just deal with international peace. It also works with domestic elements. Karr thought she would be the only Kansan represented, but has learned she will be joined by two Lawrence residents. She has discussed issues regarding the bill with one of the lobbyists, an economics professor at the University of Kansas. “All three of us will be speaking with the senators together, then we will go to our separate representatives,” Karr said. She talked with U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran during a recent visit to Canton and asked him to consider the bill. Moran told her that one of his assistants would gather the information and that he will seriously consider looking at it. “I told him that I would really love to see the first Republican co-sponsor of the bill to be from Kansas,” she said. Karr also said this is not the first time that a bill for a Cabinet-level Department of Peace has been introduced. In 1945, she said it was introduced by Everett Dirksen, former U.S. representative and senator from Illinois. According to Karr, he was a very strong Republican. “Even back in the 1700s there were efforts in this direction,” she said. “We're really starting to see the momentum.” U.S. Senator Sam Brownback had recently spent the night in the Louisiana State Penitentiary to promote prison reform, Karr mentioned. That is one of the key issues that she would like to present to the legislature. She applauded Brownback for his efforts. “I thought to myself, ‘Good for you for getting your hands dirty in this.' He's willing to look at other options, look at the weak cause and not to the symptoms,” Karr said. The “People of Peace” organization joined forces with The Peace Alliance when Karr read its web site and decided to contact them. The groups decided to become affiliated with each other. Representative of The Peace Alliance are not chosen to be a lobbyist; instead they voluntarily choose to be one. Author Marianne Williamson is co-founder of The Peace Alliance. Williamson will also be one of the key-note speakers. All of the members of “People of Peace” are supporting Karr's efforts as a lobbyist. They were able to collect enough funds to send her to Washington. “I told them from the beginning this is my passion, I'm not thrusting anyone in this organization,” she said. Karr has been handing out cards to people interested in the cause that includes information about the bill and a blank space for a person to write out comments that can be presented to Congress. She also has e-mailed several people to call U.S. senators and representatives on Feb. 2 to express support of the bill. If at least 100 people call that day, Karr believes Congress will take notice. “I've got a lot of passion behind me and a very well-structured organization,” she said. *fair use*  [ send green star]
I also posted this on Dennis' website forum January 14, 2007 3:03 AM

(copypaste) Rapid Response - Take Action! Petition: We Are Voting for Department of Peace Sponsors So if you want to be extra supportive, please go in there and post that you've signed it!  [ send green star]
Jouni, thanks for this! January 14, 2007 2:42 AM

I just signed it also (and one or two other petitions which were found on THAT petition)- How can ANY sane human being think for one second that a Department of Peace is a flaky, New Age idea? We all have everything to gain from learning the ways of peace.  [ send green star]
 January 14, 2007 12:53 AM

We, the Undersigned, endorse the following petition:
We Are Voting for Dept. of Peace Sponsors
Target: Dennis Kucinich, Congressman and Co-Sponsor of Dept. of Peace, US House of Representatives Progressive Caucus
Sponsor: Patrick Michaels, Peace Makers News Report

i just signed this. Sponsor Patrick Michael is a group member.
 [ send green star]
 January 01, 2007 8:47 AM
Join us for
The Peace Alliance
Annual Conference!
Feb 3 - 5, 2007
Washington, D.C.

More than ever
We must

    * Connect with hundreds of citizens from across the country who have come to Washington to lobby for a US Department of Peace.
    * Expand your understanding of the US Department of Peace legislation, being re-introduced in the U.S. House and Senate.
    * After two days of education and training, you will walk the Halls of Congress, visiting your members of the House and Senate to lobby for the bill.

Wage Peace

Marianne Williamson
Deepak Chopra
Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Michael Bernard Beckwith

Plus leading experts in:
Conflict Resolution & Prevention
Peace-building & Global Security
Human Security: Keeping America Safe
and more...   [ send green star]
 October 30, 2006 10:08 AM
"Evolving from antiwar to propeace"
 [ send green star]
There is now a link to the Peace Alliance September 28, 2006 12:54 PM

on the bulletin board of this group- the Peace Alliance that is pushing for a Department of Peace.  [ send green star]
keep working on this May 01, 2006 4:56 AM

I am going to bump this up and read up about it The Department of Peace!  [ send green star]
Department of Peace January 30, 2006 4:23 PM

Hi all I am new in the group but want to post my support for Rep. Kucinich. We need a Department of peace and we need it now ! "The United States was founded on hope, optimism, and a commitment to freedom. We can once again become a beacon of hope for the world. To do that, we must reject the current administration's policies of fear, suspicion, and preemptive war......."  [ send green star]
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct


This group:
Dennis Kucinich: A Man of Peace, Justice and Freedom
686 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences