Department of Peace?

[BurtWorm]

Should there be one? How would it work? Would Joe and Jane sixpack think it's a good idea? What sorts of programs would it conduct? What services would it provide? Who would be the Secretary for Peace?

My own feeling is that peace should be the default position for any government, and in particular, for a democratic one. Therefore, most services provided by the government already that are for improving the common lot are, in essence, peace programs. If a Department of Peace has the mission of promoting peaceful solutions to social and global conflicts, I think it would be best to incorporate commissions for peace in State and Justice. That would seem to avoid the danger of bureaucratizing peace and actually provide a meaningful service to the people.

What's your mind about this?

[ixion]

1. I guess my feeling is that

there shouldn't need to be a department dedicated to Peace, because Peace should be a given. That said, I'm always ready to support peaceful intentions as opposed to violent intentions.

[NJCher]

2. take the profit out of the weapons business

nationalize it and the healthcare business. There are some businesses where it is just too dangerous to allow profit.


Cher

[BurtWorm]

13. That's a nice idea. I'm definitely in favor of single payer health care.

But I don't see the need for creating a department of peace, especially if its main function is purely symbolic.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

69. Single-Payer Bomber Defense Dept.?

I like it. Although, I'm not sure that even Hitler nationalized the war machine. Scary in the wrong hands. Hmmmm, requires more thought... thanks for the idea.

[bobthedrummer]

3. Have the promotion of peace foremost in government and foreign

affairs, the military and DoD would play a large role as would law-enforcement.
http://www.kucinich.us/

[BurtWorm]

14. Peace for peace's sake?

How would this idea be applied in the real world. For example, in the Congo or Zimbabwe?

[meow2u3]

4. I'd call it the Department of Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution is, by social psychologists' definition, nonviolent and peaceful.

[BurtWorm]

12. What would they do? Train other bureacrats how not to get into fights?

Would you really want to make a whole department, a whole structure of bureaucracy, around conflict resolution?

[Liberal Classic]

5. At the very least we should rename back to Dept. of War

That would, at a minimum, be honest.

[Terwilliger]

7. ummm.....

what?

[RichV]

9. Dept. of Defense used to be called Dept. of War...

[RichV]

11. More accurate

found online:

Department of Defense: Amalgamated in 1947. The Department of Defense was established by combining the Department of War (established in 1789), the Department of the Navy (established in 1798), and the Department of the Air Force (established in 1947). Although the secretary of defense is a member of the cabinet, the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are not.

[Terwilliger]

18. oh ok

seemed like the poster wanted to call a Dept. of Peace a Dept. of War

[Liberal Classic]

27. Euphemism City

I meant the Department of Defense. Department of War is more honest. I am tired of euphemistic names for governmental agencies or legislative acts like the Department of Homeland Security or the Patriot Act.

If and representative introduces the Great Americans Love Fluffy Bunnies Protection Act run for your life.

[Terwilliger]

42. Fine...no Department of Peace...end war instead

no problem

[gratuitous]

6. It's a good idea, but you know that under Chimpy

Wait, Edward Teller just died so that spoils my punch line about who would be named the first Secretary of Peace.

Maybe Kissinger? Ollie North?

[BurtWorm]

8. Cheney would be named to head a commission

and he'd invite Northrup Grumman, Dow Chemical and Kellogg, Brown and Root to write the nation's peace policy.

[bryant69]

10. This was Kucinich's proposal a while back

First time I heard his name and not in the most flattering way. It's a fringe proposal, it has exactly zero chance of getting enacted, and what the hell would they do that isn't already being done by State and Defense? Sit around thinking Peaceful thoughts?

As uncomfortable as it is we live in a hostile world. I'm certainly not advocating the sort of bullying jerk foreign policy of President Bush and Donald Rumsfield; but I'm not a big fan of putting blinders on and ignoring the fact that we have enemies.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

15. I wish the Kucinich people at DU would explain it for us

I'm sort of surprised that they're not all over this thread. After all Department of Peace is Dennis's baby. You can't mistake this thread for anything but a critique--or attempted analysis, at least--of DK's DoP.

[diamondsoul]

20. Here's one DK supporter.

I'm not sure how well I can explain it because it's a lot bigger proposal than what some seem to think.

The Department of Peace is not being proposed to deal strictly with foreign relations issues, which seems to be the impression most people have on hearing of it. Kucinich gets a little more in depth on the subject on his issues page covering it, but even that isn't quite detailed enough for the average citizen to comprehend the scope of the Department.

The Department of Peace would be charged with a number of things-
1. addressing nonviolent resolution of conflicts across the United States-
such as in our schools, as part of protest training seminars, in domestic relationships, parenting, etc. The people staffing it would be charged with developing teaching tools for educating the public that violence is rarely the correct response to conflict and showing how there are better ways to address those conflicts.

2. addressing nonviolent conflict resolution in international affairs-
such as diplomacy training, negotiation skills, reinforcing the notion that violence should not be threatened for any but the most extreme circumstances (i.e. direct threat to our nation or one of our allies), etc.

3. examining the United States' role in the arms race and deterining where and how it is wise to scale down our weapons development systems in the interests of promoting Peace across the globe. Hopefully gathering the information needed to convince our DoD to lead the race to nuclear disarmament.

4. examining human rights problems in other nations and how the US can influence those problems without resorting to violence or military force, IOW, instead of threatening Afghanistan, we offer humanitarian assistance in exchange for a change in Afghan National policy toward women, allowing women to be educated for example.

5. determining when peaceful efforts at conflict resolution have been exhausted and when military strength should be applied to a conflict. Generally speaking this would be in conjunction with the UN and other International organizations devoted to global peace.

Now having given you some of what I understand to be the purpose of the Department of Peace, let me explain why I believe it is a valid and even needed proposal-

First, I'm a strong proponent of nuclear disarmament. I don't believe nuclear weapons should EVER be used on anyone for any reason. They are the most heinous weapons ever developed and I'm appalled that the United States resorted to using them at any time given their lasting impact on innocent people. Charging the DoD with any sort of disarmament is like telling an oil mogul we have enough oil and not to drill anymore. It ain't gonna happen. The entire goal of the DoD is to see to it that the US has the biggest, baddest, scariest weapons in existance. They will not back down from that goal without some serious pressure from the Presidential administration. A Department of Peace working in unison with the DoD would exert that pressure.

Additionally, the DoD is not going to scale back weapons production of any sort, nor focus it's energies on the security of the United States. Why? Because there's too much money to be made in war. It IS a racket and our DoD is right in the midst of it. We need a Department determined to pull the United States back from the profiteering of war and war planning to counter the corporate pressure on the DoD. As a Federal Department under the control of the President and his cabinet, the Department of Peace would fulfill that role.

Once established, the Department of Peace could easily be turned loose from the President himself, and his cabinet, and allowed to function on its own with the prime directive being exhaust ALL means of peaceful resolution and determine when that has been done with no result. At that point it would answer to Federal auditors and the Ways and Means comittee like any other Federal Department.

On a domestic level, surely we've all watched the nightly news and been sickened at all the violence happening in our own neighborhoods. Our children are taking guns to school and killing each other. Teens are shooting each other over clothing, over drugs, over a simple hurled insult! People are shooting each other or attacking each other because somebody ran a red light for pity's sake!

The violence we see daily MUST be addressed at both the top and bottm of our society in order to be brought under control. We must deal with the propensity of our DoD to resort to violent force inconflict resolution, AND simultaneously train our citizens how to deal with conflict without resorting to violence. That begins with education, and in order to implement something like that, nationwide, we need a special department dedicated to the concept of Peace itself. The ducation can't just be in schools, it has to be in schools, workplaces, social services efforts, prisons, everywhere. Everyone has to be exposed to this at some point.

Now some people will say that's socialist or communist idealism. I disagree. I'm just an ordinary person who has seen enough violence that these days I can barely stand to watch the news or read the paper. I would much rather attend courses on peaceful resolution of conflict than to see another funeral because nobody cared enough to address the problem of violence within this country. People CAN improve, but only if we all decide to give each other the means to do so. That starts with education and example. Dennis Kucinich is offering the education and the example, and I am prepared to take him up on it. I can't weigh the cost in human lives as a result of violence against the cost of a new federal Department dedicated to ending it, sorry, but I can't put a price-tag on the death and destruction I've seen in my scant 35 years of life. It's worth the cost if it prevents just one person from dying needlessly.

[BurtWorm]

22. I just want to thank you for being so thorough!

It's a lot of information. I will read it carefully the first chance I get, which, alas, is not now. Thanks again. I look forward to reading it and will get back to you.

[BurtWorm]

39. Response Part I

Your words are in italics.


The Department of Peace is not being proposed to deal strictly with foreign relations issues, which seems to be the impression most people have on hearing of it.


I understand that it's rooted in the concept of conflict resolution and peace education.



The Department of Peace would be charged with a number of things-
1. addressing nonviolent resolution of conflicts across the United States-
such as in our schools, as part of protest training seminars, in domestic relationships, parenting, etc. The people staffing it would be charged with developing teaching tools for educating the public that violence is rarely the correct response to conflict and showing how there are better ways to address those conflicts.



Why isn't this a job for the Department of Education? More to the point, might this not be seen as an intrusion of Big Brother government in very local matters? Is this a violation of the spirit of 1776, which was as much about unchaining the people from the government as it was about unchaining the US from the king? I mean, isn't this nanny government at its worst, issuing doctrines of behavior standards from on high? What will happen when the Republicans take it over? Can they be counted on to continue the mission? Will they dismantle it? Weaken it? Or worse, coopt it?


I guess those are enough questions for know. I'll let you chew on those while I go back and chew on your post.

[diamondsoul]

48. answers to your questions-

The Department of Peace would be charged with a number of things-
1. addressing nonviolent resolution of conflicts across the United States-
such as in our schools, as part of protest training seminars, in domestic relationships, parenting, etc. The people staffing it would be charged with developing teaching tools for educating the public that violence is rarely the correct response to conflict and showing how there are better ways to address those conflicts.



"Why isn't this a job for the Department of Education? More to the point, might this not be seen as an intrusion of Big Brother government in very local matters? Is this a violation of the spirit of 1776, which was as much about unchaining the people from the government as it was about unchaining the US from the king?"

The Department of Education is already overworked, as are most Federal Departments. We can't keep piling on responsibility and expect anything to get done. This is especially true in an effort such as this one. It has to be coordinated at a central point or it will never work. Intrusion of Big Brother in "very local matters"- then I would ask, is violence ever really a "very local" problem? Doesn't all violence affect all of society? I would say it does. Further, we aren't talking about passing a law that says you must never touch another living thing in anger, we're talking about teaching people how to resolve a problem and keeping violence as a very last resort. We're talking about not trying to terrorize the world into doing things they way we want them to, not trying to have the biggest, baddest, scariest weapons so nobody will mess with us. We're talking about fostering friendly relations, negotiation, reason and problem solving to resolve disputes on every level. It's a means of providing tools to the people and to the world to do things in a better way.

"I mean, isn't this nanny government at its worst, issuing doctrines of behavior standards from on high?"

Do you know of anyone who doesn't think peace is a better thing than war? That talking out a problem is better than beating out a problem? I don't, and if they're out there I'd just as soon not know them. I would say no, this is the government taking its cue from the desires of the majority of the people.

"What will happen when the Republicans take it over? Can they be counted on to continue the mission? Will they dismantle it? Weaken it? Or worse, coopt it?"

That is indeed a good question and one I cannot answer. I would say I trust Dennis Kucinich to see to it that the Department of Peace could not be easily dismantled or coopted, nor have its hands tied by Republican tricks. He's much smarter than some would give him credit for.

[BurtWorm]

52. Answers to answers

Again your words are in italics.

The Department of Education is already overworked, as are most Federal Departments. We can't keep piling on responsibility and expect anything to get done. This is especially true in an effort such as this one. It has to be coordinated at a central point or it will never work.


Fair enough.



Intrusion of Big Brother in "very local matters"- then I would ask, is violence ever really a "very local" problem? Doesn't all violence affect all of society? I would say it does.


Agreed.



Further, we aren't talking about passing a law that says you must never touch another living thing in anger, we're talking about teaching people how to resolve a problem and keeping violence as a very last resort.



My point, however, has to do with the interface of individuals with their government. In terms of domestic violence, as things are without a DoP, individuals interface with the local police when standards of community behavior are violated. They face a county or municipal court, and occasionally deal with social workers at the same level. Where is the point of entry in the system as it is for DoP agents in the future? Does the individual deal with the DoP, or do the local law enforcement and social workers deal with them?

If I think of the Department of Education's example, the feds only enter the picture because schools have, usually, financial incentives--i.e., they meet certain specific federal standards in order to receive federal funds--or because they violate federal standards, such as equal protection. But students and parents don't usually deal with the DoEd.




We're talking about not trying to terrorize the world into doing things they way we want them to, not trying to have the biggest, baddest, scariest weapons so nobody will mess with us. We're talking about fostering friendly relations, negotiation, reason and problem solving to resolve disputes on every level. It's a means of providing tools to the people and to the world to do things in a better way.



So how would DoP have the teeth behind it to foster all this tranquility? How would they work on the problem of self-disarmament? Which people would be given the tools you're talking about, on this issue specifically, and what specifically would they do with them?



PS: I posted that prematurely. There was more to your answer that I wanted to respond to.

Do you know of anyone who doesn't think peace is a better thing than war? That talking out a problem is better than beating out a problem? I don't, and if they're out there I'd just as soon not know them. I would say no, this is the government taking its cue from the desires of the majority of the people.




Again, I'm trying to ground the discussion as much as possible in reality. Not understanding the mechanics of a Department of Peace myself, I suspect I won't be alone in that, and I can foresee a suspicion in certain localities that the DoP is just another attempt by liberals to tell people how to live. They may fundamentally agree with everything you said above, but they would fundamentally disagree that the federal government is capable of solving the problem of conflict. They will be annoyed that their tax dollars are going to fund a project that is at best (on their view) a feel-good do-nothing pet department of seditionist radicals and at worst another way for liberals to insert the government's nose in their business. I foresee radical rightwingers getting a lot of mileage out of demonizing the DoP and I forsee the department winding up as chronically starved for appropriations as Energy and Education.

If this is a serious idea and not just a beautiful one, I think it would make tremendous sense to push for the creation of a Department of Peace at the state level, where a model for other states and ultimately the federal government can be designed and realized. I'm just having a difficult time imagining that the American people would be patient enough, in this fiscal and ideological climate, to indulge experimentation of this grand--and, as far as I can tell, inchoate--nature.


I asked you:

"What will happen when the Republicans take it over? Can they be counted on to continue the mission? Will they dismantle it? Weaken it? Or worse, coopt it?"

That is indeed a good question and one I cannot answer. I would say I trust Dennis Kucinich to see to it that the Department of Peace could not be easily dismantled or coopted, nor have its hands tied by Republican tricks. He's much smarter than some would give him credit for.

Dennis Kucinich may be trustworthy. Republicans sure as hell aren't.

[diamondsoul]

59. I'll try this one without the idealistic tone. ;D

My point, however, has to do with the interface of individuals with their government. In terms of domestic violence, as things are without a DoP, individuals interface with the local police when standards of community behavior are violated. They face a county or municipal court, and occasionally deal with social workers at the same level. Where is the point of entry in the system as it is for DoP agents in the future? Does the individual deal with the DoP, or do the local law enforcement and social workers deal with them?

Ok, the DoP would come in at the level of social services and the local and state police. For instance, in a domestic violence case, where the victim(s) state that the problem isn't constant-the abuser has just started down the abusive path in the recent past- The police would be trained how to handle any personal frustration with these situations by way of Federally organized training.

I mention Police frustration because I've seen cases of police brutality in making arrests when the crime is something that deeply offends them. Many times it isn't even something the officer is aware they are doing. The DoP would devise training programs for them to help reduce that sort of problem.

Then with the family itself, social services would have teaching programs devised by the DoP that teach people how to handle their own emotions and deal with each other without resorting to physical violence. I don't know if you've ever noticed it, but these programs at the State level are usually implemented only for the abuser themselves, the family gets no training or tools to deal with the situation if they aren't prepared to leave it at that time. We know very well that children who are abused most often become adult abusers themselves. I think it's vital that we start to address that by teaching these abused children that abuse is NOT a natural thing, and that it is NOT an acceptable way to treat others. We need to do that before the lessons learned from abuse are cemented in that child's mind, at the same time we try to retrain the abuser.

Now I don't know that this proposal is the perfect solution, but I do think it's a good step to addressing the problem of domestic violence at its roots. My opinion, based on my own observations over the years, is that the efforts to reduce domestic violence are simply not well coordinated because it isn't dealt with by a set National Policy.

In one state you may find an abuser jailed for 30 days and then turned loose with no follow-up, in another they may be confined for 90 days and forced to undergo anger management and psychological treatment or evaluation. There is no cohesive effort to stop violence across the country, and that's the point of the DoP, to coordinate these things nationwide.

If I think of the Department of Education's example, the feds only enter the picture because schools have, usually, financial incentives--i.e., they meet certain specific federal standards in order to receive federal funds--or because they violate federal standards, such as equal protection. But students and parents don't usually deal with the DoEd.

No the DoP would devise curriculum components, as well as other educational programs (perhaps in conjunction with the Peace Institute) that would be implemented and/or offered in schools of all levels, nationwide. It has to start with the youngest children and the top powers in government at once. That's where education comes in, at the children and average parent, etc.


So how would DoP have the teeth behind it to foster all this tranquility? How would they work on the problem of self-disarmament? Which people would be given the tools you're talking about, on this issue specifically, and what specifically would they do with them?

Your question of teeth for this effort is answered within the bill itself, which I just went to check.

"(4) The Secretary shall establish a formal process of consultation in a timely manner with the Secretary of the Department of State and the Secretary of the Department of Defense-- (A) prior to the initiation of any armed conflict between the United States and any other nation; and (B) for any matter involving the use of Department of Defense personnel within the United States. (b) CONSULTATION IN DRAFTING TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS- The executive branch shall consult with the Secretary in drafting treaties and peace agreements."

Above is the section for procedure involving potential military conflict.

The tools I referred to are covered across several sections of the bill- The establishment of a Peace Academy, and several other education endeavors for both the general public and for those in public service positions(I would hope including the President, though I don't see any mention of it specifically in the bill) would provide the tools. Training in the civil rights movements and other progressive movements which were accomplished with minimal use of violence would be taught, questioned, examined, as a means of figuring out what non-violent methods were most effective in accomplishing the goals. Non-violent change is what is advocated, non-violent response to challenges except where there is a danger to international security(direct threat to the country or an ally), or bodily harm or death(self-defense). The emphasis being to exhaust ALL peaceful options before resorting to violence or military force. It becomes a NATIONWIDE endeavor to avoid the use of violence. Something I believe is sorely needed in the United States, if not world-wide.

The bill addresses self-disarmament in these sections-

(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;

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES- The Assistant Secretary of Arms Control and Disarmament shall-- (1) advise the Secretary on all interagency discussions and all international negotiations regarding the reduction and elimination of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world, including the dismantling of such weapons and the safe and secure storage of materials related thereto; (2) assist nations, international agencies and nongovernmental organizations in assessing the locations of the buildup of nuclear arms; (3) develop nonviolent strategies to deter the testing or use of offensive or defensive nuclear weapons, whether based on land, air, sea, or in outer space; (4) serve as a depository for copies of all contracts, agreements, and treaties that deal with the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons or the protection of outer space from militarization; and (5) provide technical support and legal assistance for the implementation of such agreements.

SEC. 202. TRANSFERS.

There are hereby transferred to the Department the functions, assets, and personnel of-- (1) the Peace Corps; (2) the United States Institute of Peace; (3) the Office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs of the Department of State; (4) the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and (5) the SafeFutures program of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice.

I must recommend you read the text of the bill for answers to many of your questions. I'm frankly shocked at how much is covered in the legislation as it is currently written. Your question above "Which people would be given the tools you're talking about, on this issue specifically, and what specifically would they do with them?" lost me I'm afraid. I'm not sure if you're asking specifically on the issue of self-disarmament or peace itself.

I'll stop here because this post is huge as it stands, and I believe I'm going to try to write something up that comprehensively explains the bill for easy reference. I will get back to the remainder of your questions, but I'm afraid life is calling me away for a bit just now.

[BurtWorm]

60. This is very helpful, ds.

Thank you so much for your valuable posts. Cheers!

[diamondsoul]

70. "Dennis Kucinich may be trustworthy. Republicans sure as hell aren't. "

All too true, and have to admit you have me contemplating what happens after Kucinich leaves office where the DoP is concerned. It's something I've worried about in relation to a couple of other proposals he's put forth, but I hadn't read the bill until Tni posted the link to the DoP site. Now that I have, I'm inclined to say you raise a valid concern, but not something that should mean the whole idea should be scrapped.

I would advise Congressmembers supporting the DoP, and most especially Congressman Kucinich as the author of the current legislation, to consider that eventuality. Possibly add some components releasing the DoP from Presidential control at a certain point from the time of its establishment. If I were directly involved in the writing, I would have stipulated that military action would only be legal and possible with the unanimous decision of the DoP, the State Dept. AND the DoD along with Congressional approval. But then I despise war and all it means, so I want it to be as difficult as possible to enter into it.

I've spoken to my State Coordinator, and decided to write up the piece on the DoP that I mentioned. Something people everywhere can read and understand easily, as well as covering all aspects of the current legislation. In the process, who knows, maybe I'll toss in a few suggestions to ensure the security and effectiveness of the Department that will inspire the Congress-members to rewrite the bill.

[AnAmerican]

44. diamondsoul...Dennis is more powerful with you spreading his message

Excellent post Keep up the great work :)

[diamondsoul]

46. Oh my!

:blushing: Thank you very much. I consider it an honor to promote the proposals that will restore a country I have loved my whole life to what it once was and even better was always meant to be.

It's funny. I was talking to a friend a little while ago, and as is typical with me, the conversation turned to the state of the world and Kucinich. We started discussing it because recently a grown man in our neighborhood came to blows with a 14 yr old child. I was disgusted and appalled that a grown man would attack a child, no matter how mouthy the kid might have been, but that appears to be what happened.

I said words to the affect that you know something is very wrong when an adult has no response to a disrepectful child but fisticuffs. Given the behavior of the sitting pResident it's not terribly shocking, just disheartening. I said we drop bombs on people to "free them from oppression" and think this is ok, we attack countries for "harboring terrorists" and think that's ok, then scream about the human rights violations of those countries. Meanwhile thousands of other human rights violations are ignored and even overlooked deliberately because it makes things easier for the US.

So here comes a man who says "You know, if we really wanted to, if you're all up to it, we can change things. We can all be healthy, we can help other people in other countries and we can stop hurting each other all the time.", and everyone responds with "Oh he's just a ideological extremist! He's got no chance in hell!".

Somebody tell me please how it's not extreme to threaten and bully instead of negotiating, how it's not extreme to let the rich get richer on the suffering of others, how it's ok to let our schools, roads, even hospitals fall apart while we send money across the globe to fix the stuff we bombed to smithereens, and on and on and on. Tell me how extreme it is to want to stop all those things and make our country healthier, safer, more balanced and more free, because I really don't get it.

What is extreme about wanting everyone to have a fair shake, wanting to avoid war and violence and teach people who it can be done, wanting to reverse laws that steal from the American people and make rich people richer at all cost, wanting to stop human suffering on a global scale and being willing and ready to work toward that end instead of taking the easy bullies way of dealing with others?

Because it seems to me Congressman Kucinich describes the vision and dreams I've always had for this country, the most logical sensible, safe and rational visions for us and for the world at large.

[chadm]

29. They are not all over this thread because

they'd rather bitch about all the problems vs. consider real solutions.

[diamondsoul]

32. ???

I guess it didn't occur to you that some of them might be busy spreading the Kucinich Platform and not online to post to the thread?

Also, the DoP is a complicated concept which is most likely why the Congressman hasn't gone into a great amount of detail in his issues section about its purposes.

You appear to like Kucinich's platform, yet you keep posting all these negative remarks. What's up with that?

It's actually kind of funny you posting about bitching without considering solutions. I'd have to say you're very wrong about that. I just opened a bill from my kids Pediatrician. This was my first notification that my health-insurance copay had gone up. Not a peep from my insurance company about this change. Meanwhile, I know my premiums have also gone up, and my coverage has not changed in the slightest. My reaction? "G-dammit! And people wonder why I support Kucinich!"

No, I'm not bitching and not considering solutions, Kucinich has already put forth the solutions. My response is to do everything in my power to see him elected. What's yours?

[BurtWorm]

33. My sentiments exactly, ds

I'm so glad you expressed it and I didn't have to!

:hi:

[chadm]

35. I wasn't talking about you

It was just my observation that when discussions turn from "the latest outrage" to "real ideas" they tend to die down. This has been my experience, which may be different from yours. You make a lot of good points.

[AnAmerican]

45. Um...OK....

Actually Dennis has one of the better, more fleshed out, set of policy initiatives. Do some reading...then comment with an actual grasp of DK's position.

[BurtWorm]

16. Where are the Kucinich people?

This is your chance to explain this idea of your candidate's.

[Karmadillo]

17. Here's red meat

just for you. :)

I have trouble seeing much that's objectionable in the proposal. Obviously, implementation would take real work and who knows how things would work out in the long run. Still, when we spend so much money on war and on maintaining our material advantages over most of the rest of the world, it wouldn't be such a bad thing to give this idea a try.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_departmentpeace.htm

As we stand on the threshold of a new millennium, it is time to free ourselves, to jettison our illusions and fears and transform age-old challenges with new thinking. We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. Of peace, wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. Can we move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all war?

Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make non-violence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control. Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values.

Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable'. Thus it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus.

The Department of Peace will also address human development and the unique concerns of women and children. It will envision and seek to implement plans for peace education, not simply as a course of study, but as a template for all pursuits of knowledge within formal educational settings.

more...

[chadm]

30. This man is a modern day Thomas Jefferson

Too bad the American people have become to cynical to embrace him. Another world is possible if we want it.

[Terwilliger]

19. funny, you could also look it up

since it's a main plank at his website

Here's his basic policy:

<8> A Renewed Commitment to Peace and Diplomacy
America will return to its role as the most admired—not hated—nation. The doctrine of "pre-emption" will be retired, as will an aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy that makes our homeland less secure, not more. Our security will be enhanced by working with other nations and the U.N. instead of acting like an Empire, arrogantly undermining international agreements such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, the Small Arms Treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Climate Treaty. As President, Kucinich will work to implement two measures he sponsored in Congress: the Space Preservation Treaty, which bans space-based weapons, and a cabinet-level Department of Peace, to establish non-violence as an organizing principle in both domestic and international affairs.

A Kucinich administration will cut bloated and unneeded weaponry from a military budget that now almost equals the military spending of all other countries combined. The Kucinich peace dividend will be invested in education, health care, environmental clean-up, urban infrastructure, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, and other pressing domestic needs.

[BurtWorm]

21. That certainly doesn't answer my questions.

If you look at the first post, which asks for more specifics.

But thanks anyway.

[Terwilliger]

43. sure...

wanted to help

[BurtWorm]

56. You're just a helpful guy.

;)

[JohnKleeb]

23. Well it was Washington's idea

You know
I think its a fine idea. Peace is worth fighting for.

[goodhue]

24. U.S. Institute of Peace

http://www.aaiusa.org/pipes_harkin.htm

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
http://harkin.senate.gov/

Mr. Chairman. I would like to address the nomination of Mr. Pipes to the
U.S. Institute of Peace Board of Directors.

I was here at the beginning of our efforts to start the Institute of Peace
with my former colleagues, Senator Sparky Matsunaga and Senator Mark
Hatfield. At that time, we wanted to set up a National Academy of
Peace. This idea had first been proposed by George Washington and a couple
of others involved in our Revolutionary War. They proposed setting up a
Department of Peace within the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, the idea of a Peace Academy did not take hold at first and
was debated for many, many years. Finally in the late 1980's through
compromise and negotiation it was decided that there would be an institute
rather than an academy. The law establishing the U.S. Institute of Peace
was signed by President Reagan in 1984.

[goodhue]

25. USIP History

http://www.usip.org/aboutus/index.html

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts. Established in 1984, the Institute meets its congressional mandate through an array of programs, including research grants, fellowships, professional training, education programs from high school through graduate school, conferences and workshops, library services, and publications. The Institute's Board of Directors is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.


History

The Institute's origins date to the earliest days of the Republic. The idea for the establishment of an official U.S. government institution dedicated to the cause of international peace can be traced back to debates by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The first formal proposal for the establishment of an official U.S. government peace institution dates to 1792. The product of efforts by architect and publisher Benjamin Banneker and physician and educator Dr. Benjamin Rush, the proposal called for establishing a "Peace Office" on equal footing with the War Department—noting the importance to the welfare of the United States of "an office for promoting and preserving perpetual peace in our country."

Over the years, the idea of an official U.S. peace office or agency continued to be advocated by a wide array of prominent Americans, including Woodrow Wilson, Jennings Randolph, and Everett Dirksen. In fact, from 1935 to 1976 over 140 bills were introduced in Congress to establish various peace-related departments, agencies, bureaus, and committees of Congress.

In 1976, the first cornerstone for the campaign that led to creation of the U.S. Institute of Peace was laid when Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana and Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon introduced a bill to create the George Washington Peace Academy. After hearings in the Senate on the Hartke-Hatfield bill, it was decided that further study was needed. In 1979, after several unsuccessful attempts, a provision was successfully added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Appropriation Bill for the establishment of the Commission on Proposals for the National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution.

A nonpartisan commission consisting of appointees named by President Jimmy Carter and the leadership of the House and Senate, the committee worked for over a year and half. Chaired by Senator Spark Matsunaga of Hawaii, the Matsunaga Commission, as it came to be known, conducted a wide survey and study of the theories, techniques, and institutions involved in the resolution of international conflicts. The commission met with military and government officials, leading educators, conflict resolution professionals, and representatives from various religious, ethnic, and scientific communities. In addition to these sessions, the commission heard from thousands of interested citizens through a series of public meetings held across the nation that resulted in over 6,000 pages of transcripts.

In 1981, after the completion of its deliberations, the Matsunaga Commission issued a final report recommending the creation of a national peace academy. Based upon the recommendations included in the report, bills were subsequently introduced in both houses of Congress under the bipartisan sponsorship of Senators Mark Hatfield, Spark Matsunaga, and Jennings Randolph and Congressman Dan Glickman. A vigorous public campaign led by Milton C. Mapes of the National Peace Academy Campaign supported these efforts. After considerable debate about the appropriate form of the new institution, the United States Institute of Peace Act was finally passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. The Institute's Board of Directors was installed in February 1986 and held its first meeting then, and the initial staff of three people opened the Institute's first office at 730 Jackson Place NW, Washington, D.C., in April of that year.

[Tinoire]

26. You can read all about it here

DiamondSoul gave you a terrific run-down! But you might be interested in checking the Dept of Peace's web-site:

http://www.dopcampaign.org/

Q: Can the Department of Peace be construed as anti-war, considering the controversy surrounding the United States’ involvement in the recent war in Iraq?

A: Some certainly will. However, it is not inherently anti-war. The long-term goal is to make war unnecessary. It does not in any way specifically address the Iraq war. The DoP legislation addresses a wide range of issues both domestic and international in scope. The legislation was originally introduced in the House of Representatives in July of 2001, before the War in Iraq, and before Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.dopcampaign.org/faq.htm
-------------------------------------------

The Department would focus on nonmilitary peaceful conflict resolutions, prevent violence and promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights. Domestically, the Department would be responsible for developing policies which address issues such as domestic violence, child abuse, mistreatment of the elderly, and other issues of cultural violence. Internationally, the Department would gather research, analyze foreign policy and make recommendations to the President on how to address the root causes of war and intervene before violence begins, while improving national security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international conflict.


There are currently 50 co-sponsors of the bill:

Alabama
None at this time

Alaska
None at this time

Arkansas
None at this time

Arizona
Grijalva , Raol (D-AZ, 7th)

California
Farr, Sam (D-CA, 17th)
Filner, Bob (D-CA, 51st)
Honda, Michael (D-CA, 15th)
Lee, Barbara (D-CA, 9th)
Miller, George (D-CA, 7th)
Solis, Hilda (D-CA, 32nd)
Stark, Fortney (D-CA,13th)
Waters, Maxine (D-CA,35th)
Watson, Diane (D-CA, 33rd)
Woolsey, Lynn (D-CA,6th)

Colorado
Udall, Mark (D-CO,2nd)

Connecticut
None at this time

Deleware
none at this time

Florida
None at this time

Georgia
Lewis, John (D-GA, 5th)

Hawaii
Abercrombie, Neil (D-HI, 1st)

Idaho
None at this time

Illinois
Davis, Danny (D-IL, 7th)
Evans, Lane (D-IL, 17th)
Gutierrez, Luis (D-IL, 4th)
Jackson, Jesse (D-IL, 2nd)
Schakowsky, Janice (D-IL, 9th)

Indiana
Carson, Julia (D-IN, 7th)

Iowa
None at this time

Kansas
None at this time

Kentucky
None at this time

Louisiana
none at this time

Maine
None at this time

Maryland
Cummings, Elijah (D-MD, 7th)

Massachusetts
McGovern, James (D-MA, 3rd)
Olver, John (D-MA, 1st)

Michigan
Conyers, John (D-MI, 14th)

Minnesota
Oberstar, James (D-MN, 8th)

Mississippi
Thompson, Bennie (D- MS 2nd)

Missouri
Clay William (D-MO, 1st)

Montana
None at this time

Nevada
None at this time

New Hampshire
None at this time

New Jersey
Holt, Rush D. (D- NJ)
Payne, Donald (D-NJ,10th)

New Mexico
None at this time

New York
Hinchey, Maurice (D-NY, 22nd)
Maloney, Carolyn (D-NY, 14th)
Meeks, Gregory (D-NY, 6th)
Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY, 8th)
Owens, Major (D-NY, 14th)
Rangel, Charles (D-NY,15th)
Serrano, Jose (D-NY, 16th)
Towns, Edolphus (D-NY, 10th)
Velazquez, Nydia (D-NY,12th)

North Carolina
None at this time

North Dakota
none at this time

Ohio
Brown, Sherrod (D-OH, 13th)
Kucinich, Dennis (D-OH, 10th)
Ryan, Tim (D-OH, 17th)
Tubbs Jones, Stephanie (D-OH, 11th)

Oregon
DeFazio, Peter (D-OR, 4th)

Pennsylvania
None at this time

Rhode Island
none at this time

South Carolina
none at this time

South Dakota
none at this time

Tennessee
None at this time

Texas
Jackson-Lee (D-TX, 18th)
Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-TX, 30th)

Utah
None at this time

Vermont
Sanders, Bernard (I-VT)

Virginia
Scott, Bobby (D-VA, 3rd)

Washington
McDermott, Jim (D-WA, 7th)

Washington DC
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)

West Virginia
Rahall, Nick (D-WV, 3rd)

Wisconsin
Baldwin , Tammy (D-WI, 2nd)

http://www.dopcampaign.org/endorsements.htm

Organizational Endoresements:

Veterans for Peace (www.veteransforpeace.org)

Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org)

Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org)

National Organization for Women- N.O.W. (www.now.org)

Physicians for Social Responsibility (www.psr.org)

Peace Action (www.peace-action.org)

Global Youth Action Network (www.takingitglobal.org)

YES! - Youth for Environmental Sanity (www.yesworld.org)

School Mediation Center (www.schoolmediationcenter.org)

Democrats.com (www.democrats.com)

EPIC- Education for Peace in Iraq Center (www.epic-usa.org)

American Voices Abroad (http://americansineurope.org/old)

[diamondsoul]

31. *grin* My ego got a little puffy after I wrote that.

I posted it at the volunteer site offering it for use on the campaign sites if they want it. Dennis has spoken my thoughts verbatim enough times that it seems right to offer him use of mine if he'd like them.

I thought about how much time he has to invest in prepping for appearances, working on legislation, traveling, etc. and figured it might save him some of that if someone wrote this out and gave him authorization to alter, correct and distribute it as needed.

Here's the scary thing....I hadn't read the DoP legislation or looked at the site, all of my explanation came from listening to Dennis! I have just GOT to meet him someday!

[Tinoire]

37. I really hope you do!

And John Kleeb too!!!

That was an amazing piece! Will you add it to the Vision and Issues thread?

Peace :)

IMAGINE

[JohnKleeb]

38. thanks!

I would love to meet him, I wanted to go to the debate last night. I really ought to call the number soon. I am always proud to support who I support you know, not only are me and him eye to eye on the issues, but he comes from the heart I love that, I also think his life story is one that will make you realize the value of hard work.

[diamondsoul]

40. Absolutely, I'll add it, and a kick for this thread! n/t

[chadm]

28. Yes

- Joe sixpack will have no opinion, he'll be too busy watching sports. Who cares?

- Programs: how about negotiations, talks, etc.? How about real, grassroots economic development? How about exposing war mongers for who they are? Just a few quick ideas.

- You really think the government is in the business of peace? Interesting. I guess, to the extent that it protects the wealth and position of the peominent, I suppose you're right.

- I would go further and suggest that the DOD should only have the ability to act with the permission of the Department of Peace.

[sandnsea]

34. If Peace is Primary, then why no Dept to promote it?

We spend $400 billion a year on war because we believe in war. We don't truly believe in peace, in fact, we don't even care about peace. We care about power and money. Power to control the world's trade and the money that can be made from it. That's all we've ever cared about.

A Dept of Peace would be the only chance to alter this destructive course that the nation and the world has been on. If we want peace, we have to put the framework in place to get it.

What do you REALLY believe in?

[JohnKleeb]

36. sand thanks a bunch for that one thread

That said we only got 3 negative responses, hell its something you gotta live with, you gotta believe I think, and I for one am sick of being told your guy doesnt have a chance, gee wiz I could be an asshole on you and believe me I can and you know what I wont, because I can hold it in. Thats not directed at you sand at all its directed at those who constantly say oh Kucinich doesnt have a chance and the like.

[govegan]

41. In addition to information from other Kucinich supporters

I would add that most of the twentieth century was rife with war and violent conflict, in the US and abroad.

Existing Cabinet level departments already have defined agendas and programs, and none have the substance of peace as an objective.

Even asking "What is peace?" could occupy many souls for many years, and the concept is foreign to most today.

Just to quote Joy Harjo from her "Equinox" poem:

Soon they will come for me and I will make my stand
before the jury of destiny. Yes, I will answer in the clatter
of the new world, I have broken my addiction to war
and desire. Yes, I will reply, I have buried the dead

and made songs of the blood, the marrow.

Obviously, the US has not broken its addiction to war and desire.

Establishing a Dept. of Peace is the very least we could do, is it not?

[cosmicdot]

47. conflict management is like preventive medicine

the emphasis being on diffusing the underlying roots of conflict and/or problems which can lead to severe conflict

conflict prevention, conflict mitigation, participation,
and capacity building, conflict management, peace, peace building ...


conflict management is the wave of the future - it's already taking root in university study/courses


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=conflict+management

if we can support and encourage preventive maintenance when it comes to our health in order to reduce devastating health conditions at the danger point ... why can't we approach problems in a similar manner?

how else can we turn the tide on the feeding Pentagon war machine which thrives and profits at the danger point?

lets put the profit center on peace

sure beats the words out of shrub's mouth which went unchallenged ... and, I think he was speaking of Afghanistan at the time ... this is the FIRST WAR of the 21st Century ... that certainly gives us a lot of hope, huh?

why taunt with 'where are the Kucinich supporters' ... we're peaceful people :)

[BurtWorm]

53. Sorry if it seems like I taunted. I just wanted a dialogue on this.

I have a bias against it, I admit. But then, I have a bias against the Department of Homeland Security, as well. And it's not that I have anything against peace or homeland security, per se. It's just that DoP seems too vague and DHS too complex to be legitimate, effective government agencies.

But I'm trying to dialogue peacefully, rationally and respectfully. And I appreciate your reply.

[IranianDemocrat]

49. I think we should start the Departent of Orgy.

eom

[govegan]

50. Kucinich’s Acceptance of 2003 Gandhi Peace Award

The text for Dennis Kucinich's acceptance speech when receiving the 2003 Gandhi Peace Award can be found at this link:

http://pepeace.org/current_reprints/06/Dennis%20Kucinich.htm

Here is the ending of it:


And so as we offer a competing vision for the world, that competing vision can seek to make war itself archaic. And that, my friends, is what has animated the idea of a Department of Peace. To take the work of Gandhi, and the work of Dr. King, and the work of other great religious leaders, and to work to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society.

This competing vision, this alternative vision, this light-filled vision which we offer, looks at our own society with love and with the understanding that we can be more than we are and better than we are. We look at the pathologies in our society of domestic violence, of spousal abuse, of child abuse. Of violence in our schools, of gangs, of police-community relations challenges, of violence against gays and violence against all types of minorities. And we begin to develop structures within our society to teach children mutuality, reciprocity, sharing, peace-giving. Some communities are already doing that. To use the very power of government itself to institutionalize that type of an approach in a society. Think for a moment how a 400 billion dollar defense budget informs the consciousness of our nation. Think for a moment, how spending anywhere from 99 billion to 1.9 trillion dollars on a war in Iraq, plus occupation, plus reconstruction, how that would inform the consciousness of our nation. Think for a moment how the agenda of America has been set. Through spending hundreds of billions in a cold war. Through spending hundreds of billions in hot wars. Through being prepared to spend up to one and a half trillion dollars on a missle defense system, which doesn't work, and even if it did, we wouldn't want it to. Think of, instead, offering the possibility of a structure within our government that would begin to offer another way, another path. That's what the Department of Peace seeks to do. On an international level, it looks at mediation, intervention nonviolently, it looks at issues of human scarcity, of poverty, and those conditions which give rise to the kind of despair which produces war. War is not inevitable! Peace is inevitable, but we have to insist on the power of our humanity to bring forth this new possibility. "Come, my friends! Tis not too late to seek a newer world!" said the poet Tennyson. "Come, my friends! Tis not too late to seek a newer world!" So while the lights twinkle across this beautiful point, while the bombs drop, and missles are launched into the city of our brothers and sisters, we realize that we have this moment in time and space where we can change the outcome! Where we are not stuck! Where we can use this power which is inside of us, this light inside of our hearts! And let that light shine, let it shine in this darkness! Let it shine in the chaos! Let it shine-and let that shine so that this alternative vision of peace, which is the vision of which our lives are made, that this alternative vision of peace, which can be the vision of which our country expresses itself, that this alternative vision of peace, that reflects the lives' work of so many who have come before us, that this shall be a vision through which the creativity, and through which the transformational energy that will bring us this new world, can be achieved.

Come my friends, tis not too late to seek a newer world.

I hope this offers illumination for those who would like to know what is on the mind of those who want to see a Secretary of Peace.

The work of Gandhi, the work of Dr. King, as Dennis mentions, are so very relevant and so very meaningful. Let us seek to prosper and do well without inflicting suffering, pain, hardship and grief upon so many with whom we share this globe.

[DealsGapRider]

51. Silly idea. Proposed by a silly candidate. Supported by silly people.

Tailor-made for attacks by Repugs eager to paint Dems as pansies. Also redundant. Spreading peace is what the Department of State should be for.

This is this kind of thing that makes me think Kucinich is such an idiot. He's sure good at making the Ben & Jerry's Left feel good, but this kind of proposal makes liberals look ridiculous to mainstream America.

[undergroundpanther]

54. Peace

Hmm I don't know about you but isn't it time we realized being a smart ass,insensitive tuff guy doesen't help anything in this world be better?
Haven't we realized yet that america's tendancy to look up to the cold, tough skinned and emotionally stunted socialized sociopaths is hurting us..so that we end up behaving as bullies to each other,disdaining the very real vunerabilities and emotional wounds we all have,because we have desensitized ourselves and each other so we are confused,rationalizing and oblivious to the emotional onslaught gebnerated by bullies,bigots,cruelty,sarcasm,abuse,hate,war..?

A department of peace would on best intentions seek to undo thesocialized sociopath within,us and our culture and curb the effects of that sickness we call'normal' that harms whom it cannot dominate..

The department of peace Is the sane response to insane socialization.

We as a species cannot survive in a world of ever dwindling resources if all we know how to do is compete against one another to hoard what is left.If every relationship is some variant of dominate and submit exploit and control we are ill equipped psychologically to survive together without destroying each other.
Changes start from within.

This habitual sick way of relating to each other is destroying us all from within and without.Civility in relationships of every kind does matter,and it's time we learned to speak to one another like human beings without tearing each other apart because we feel defensive or in control of someone else.
Bullying undermines freedom as does scapegoating,verbal abuse and violence.

People have to really learn how to start caring about quality of life, caring about well being,caring about each other and think about how to excercise self restraint,and how to empathize,changing how we relate to one another and become aware of what the impact and consequences are for what we do and say and how others might take it.

If you are habitually arrogant,self-absorbed,defensive,exploiting,bullying,controlling or agressive this way of relating might be uncomfortable for you for awhile.It might even chafe your ego or your machismo.But everyone needs to learn how to relate to others peacefully because we all share this world.Some people have grown up were never been taught how to create good relationships.


Simple social skills like listening,consideration and empathy of the another's emotions and life can go along way twords making peace.One way to get alot of people psychologically equipped for peace quickly is to teach people conflict resolution wherever you are,by stopping indulging in humiliating,harassing,and bullying and stop excusing,silencing,rationalizing,or denying it's hurtful impact when it happens around you.
A department of peace would equip and support more people psychologically to handle peace.


Saying no to abuse and confronting abusers with the choices theve made and the consequences is not a bad thing.It might upset some people to look at thier own behaviors(the bullies and enablers). It is very important to understand this sick interrelated intricate dynamic of anti-social/socialization if we are ever as a species going to understand what peace might be like.

[BurtWorm]

55. This is all fine and good. But is it the role of government

to teach people how to relate? I think the answer to the question lies in practicability. So far I've seen a lot of sermonizing about behavior but no specifics on what the department would do. Would George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld be hauled before the DoP enforcement office to be made to look at their own behaviors?

How would it work? In the real world?

[opihimoimoi]

57. It should start in College courses, LIKE:: PEACE 101, PEACE 576

PH D in PEACEMAKING, the thesis and dissertations are missing.

[diamondsoul]

61. This is to you and to the other person

who jeered at the Department of Peace, I must ask, have you READ the bill?

If not then you can't know whether it's a rational proposal or not. I've noted a strong inclination in a great many people to dismiss something without ever looking at the substance of it, and I suspect that's what we see in your post and in the post of the other who spoke of "laugh(ing) at it". Interestingly, it fits with the notion that most people despise (or fear) what they fail to comprehend.

[BurtWorm]

62. As a person who is skeptical of DoP

I agree with you on this. It's easy to lob grenades at something you never get close to. This thread was never intended as a "let's trash DoP" fest. It was intended to get clear about what this idea is and to find out what substance there is to it.

So, again, thanks, diamondsoul, for your willingness to educate and have a dialogue about this subject.

[Zuni]

58. a really corny idea

We have a state department to engage in peaceful solutions. We should listen to them more.

Most people, like me will just laugh if this comes up. The only people to take this seriously are the hippy, hard core vegan peacenik types that tree sit and eat Tofurkey at Thanksgiving.

Kucinich should concentrate on doing something about NAFTA and stuff, which is sorely needed.

[JohnKleeb]

63. Washington is a hard core peacenik? and Tom Harkin?

He talks about NAFTA a lot actually. BTW I am not that sterotype and I love my meat but I do believe in promoting peace and this isnt just international.

[Tinoire]

65. Keep laughing! Who cares?

I'm laughing my ass off watching all the Centrist candidates try to pretend they're progressives and back-pedalling all over the place praying that people have short memories.

[Sancho Panza]

64. Peace comes from courage and strength

The stigma attached to pacifism is deeply ingrained in America. Stereotypes abound of "peaceniks" as weak or soft-willed.

On the contrary, a quickness to aggression and hostility as reactive "problem-solvers" is a sign of weakness. Weakness of the imagination, weakness of the spirit, and weakness of will. War is the easy (and let's not forget profitable) way out. It stirs up misguided feelings of intense nationalism - like sport on a deadly and massive scale. It deadens our souls. Many of us remember the legacy of Vietnam in our culture. The cynicism and lingering wounds remain.

We have a Peace Corps, and it is one of the few government programs not Orwellian in name. Why not a Peace Department? The United States has many, many broken fences to mend, and a sincere outreach of a proactive, diplomatically engaging foreign policy to offset the foul taste these past couple of years of Bush-League warfare and trampling over the wishes of our allies has wrought.

All we have is reactive, endless cycle means of engaging people and nations who need not be our enemies. Terrorist attacks? Why, we declare a "War on Terror"! Want to look at the root causes? Why, you are un-American! McCarthy's ghost is pleased.

Remember, the "Defense" Department was once the War Department, which was changed - yes, that's right - after asserting the national security apparatus in place after World War II. The most powerful country in the history of the species now needed to 'defend' itself from the planet it conquered. But the purpose of the department was ever so thus.

Even if the idea of a Peace Department seems unlikely or untenable, consider the idea on a personal level. Be your own department of peace. Then move it up to the local level, and so on.

There are reasons Gandhi, MLK, and countless others are icons for most of us. They used peace as an instrument of strength and will to conquer hearts and minds, not land or oil.

[JohnKleeb]

66. sancho are you DK or do you work for DK lol

because that was very good! even if you arent, I really liked what you had to say and seen your other words. Welcome to DU.

[Sancho Panza]

67. thank you JohnKleeb!

I am not Dennis Kucinich, but thanks for the kind words. :-)

Thanks to everyone for making me feel welcome!

[JohnKleeb]

68. your welcome make a hell of a lot of sense

So true. Peace is what Gandhi and MLK fought for as you said. Socrates once said that the only good is knowledge and the evil is ignorance, DK's knowledge that peace is a great thing and the ignorant led by Bush and Co think peace through war is good, they are the ignorant. Kucinich is a great candiate I just wish people would see why people like us support him and the idea of a peaceful world.