By Jacqueline Haessly, Ph. D.
(677 words)
This commentary is unpublished.
The national conversation this past week, stimulated by morning and evening news shows, radio and TV talk shows, and local and national newspapers, has centered on the role of sexism during this current primary election season, and its role in diminishing the possibility of nominating and ultimately electing the first woman to the position of President of the United States.
There is ample evidence -- backed up by both media and academic research -- that sexist practices abound during this campaign season. I deplore the focus on the attire of one candidate over two others; the use of language that demeans and denigrates; the inability of investigative and news reporters and commentators to hold candidates to a single standard when it comes to the manner in which candidates express their positions on security threats and war. I further deplore the failure of candidates themselves to speak out against such practices...
...The women who challenge the sexism that permeates this primary season do important work. Now, they need to look deeper into their own language and images and begin to examine and challenge their own assumptions about who decides the needs of all women, and to make certain that their vision goes beyond the needs of only white working-class women, because otherwise their concerns about sexism only serve to cover the underlying racial dimensions and even racial prejudice that continues to surface during this primary race.
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us)
Jacqueline Haessly, President of Peacemaking Associates, Peace Education Specialist, Consultant and Coach. Contact her at jacpeace@earthlink.net
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
A Time for Honest Debate
By Wim Laven
(559 Words)
This Commentary is Unpublished.
Balancing majority rule against minority rights may be the single most important feature of the American democratic process. In order to find, and keep a just balance we encourage lively debate, thoughtful compromise, and tolerance. For this it seems understanding one another would be fundamental. Yet, how many times have you been given the advice, “whatever you do – don’t talk about politics?” My guess: too many times to count. It’s the kind of advice that reflects the way people think, and what they value. This thinking suggests voters do not want to debate the issues, and our politicians have taken this message to heart.
I want to know when people are going to seriously talk about working toward lasting peace. It is easy to point fingers at the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and it seems people are quick to pick a reason, “we shouldn’t have been there to begin with” or “it was a bunch of lies… we were after the oil” but when it comes to the difficult part – “what’s next;” people tend to quiet down...
...It seems people sitting on couches need to be able to do more than just “agree to disagree," because there are real consequences and we should be thinking about them...
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us)
Wim Laven is a mediator and masters candidate in conflict resolution at Portland State University. He worked on Conflict Sensitive Reconstruction with the Sarvodaya movement in Sri Lanka after the tsunami.
(559 Words)
This Commentary is Unpublished.
Balancing majority rule against minority rights may be the single most important feature of the American democratic process. In order to find, and keep a just balance we encourage lively debate, thoughtful compromise, and tolerance. For this it seems understanding one another would be fundamental. Yet, how many times have you been given the advice, “whatever you do – don’t talk about politics?” My guess: too many times to count. It’s the kind of advice that reflects the way people think, and what they value. This thinking suggests voters do not want to debate the issues, and our politicians have taken this message to heart.
I want to know when people are going to seriously talk about working toward lasting peace. It is easy to point fingers at the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and it seems people are quick to pick a reason, “we shouldn’t have been there to begin with” or “it was a bunch of lies… we were after the oil” but when it comes to the difficult part – “what’s next;” people tend to quiet down...
...It seems people sitting on couches need to be able to do more than just “agree to disagree," because there are real consequences and we should be thinking about them...
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us)
Wim Laven is a mediator and masters candidate in conflict resolution at Portland State University. He worked on Conflict Sensitive Reconstruction with the Sarvodaya movement in Sri Lanka after the tsunami.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Afghanistan Falls Apart
By Jesse Laird
(1,061 words)
The Bush Administration keeps telling Americans the war in Afghanistan is a success. But while the world was focused on Iraq, the conflict in Afghanistan entered a new phase of violence and decay. As we put more Americans troops into Afghanistan, let us pause to get our facts straight.
Americans Killed, Wounded
Despite the assurances of the Bush Administration, the fact is that more and more Americans are dying in Afghanistan. The military reports more than 495 US troops have been killed in Operation Enduring Freedom, and more than 1,200 have been seriously wounded. Then there are dead American contractors (number unknown), and irreparable damage to our soldiers who do make it home.
A combination of factors has made mental illness the new signature wound. Navy Surgeon General Donald Arthur reported to Congress nearly 1 in 3 US soldiers are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan with severe mental health problems, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and symptoms related to traumatic head injury. Arthur is Chair of the Defense Department Task Force on Mental Health, and in 2007 he issued a grim assessment, saying, “The system of care for psychological health …is not sufficient to meet the needs of today’s forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet the needs in the future.” Arthur estimates 300,000 soldiers suffer from these disorders.
Troops and Violence Rise, Afghans Suffer
Despite the fatalities, injuries and mental health crisis, US troop levels are on the rise: The Pentagon has announced they plan to increase combat forces in Afghanistan by as many as 7,500 above the current level –already 31,000, a record high. In fact, every year that the US puts more troops into Afghanistan the conflict gets worse.
Violence in Afghanistan is now at the highest level since the 2001 US invasion. The Guardian Newspaper (March, 2008) reported that shootings ambushes, kidnappings, suicide attacks and roadside bombings are more common than ever. In 2006, there were 123 such attacks and, in 2007, that number rose more than 25 percent, to 160 attacks. Security for Afghans gets worse every year the US is there: in 2005, there were an estimated 1,000 casualties and, in 2006, that number surged to 4,000. The United Nations has reported that 2007 is the worst on record: civilian casualties in Afghanistan soared above 8,000, with at least 1,500 innocent men, women and children killed in acts of violence....
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us)
Jesse Laird is a research analyst on US-Afghan Conflict for the American Friends Service Committee, and a Masters candidate in Conflict Resolution at Portland State University. Contact him at peacevoicepdx@gmail.com.
(1,061 words)
The Bush Administration keeps telling Americans the war in Afghanistan is a success. But while the world was focused on Iraq, the conflict in Afghanistan entered a new phase of violence and decay. As we put more Americans troops into Afghanistan, let us pause to get our facts straight.
Americans Killed, Wounded
Despite the assurances of the Bush Administration, the fact is that more and more Americans are dying in Afghanistan. The military reports more than 495 US troops have been killed in Operation Enduring Freedom, and more than 1,200 have been seriously wounded. Then there are dead American contractors (number unknown), and irreparable damage to our soldiers who do make it home.
A combination of factors has made mental illness the new signature wound. Navy Surgeon General Donald Arthur reported to Congress nearly 1 in 3 US soldiers are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan with severe mental health problems, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and symptoms related to traumatic head injury. Arthur is Chair of the Defense Department Task Force on Mental Health, and in 2007 he issued a grim assessment, saying, “The system of care for psychological health …is not sufficient to meet the needs of today’s forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet the needs in the future.” Arthur estimates 300,000 soldiers suffer from these disorders.
Troops and Violence Rise, Afghans Suffer
Despite the fatalities, injuries and mental health crisis, US troop levels are on the rise: The Pentagon has announced they plan to increase combat forces in Afghanistan by as many as 7,500 above the current level –already 31,000, a record high. In fact, every year that the US puts more troops into Afghanistan the conflict gets worse.
Violence in Afghanistan is now at the highest level since the 2001 US invasion. The Guardian Newspaper (March, 2008) reported that shootings ambushes, kidnappings, suicide attacks and roadside bombings are more common than ever. In 2006, there were 123 such attacks and, in 2007, that number rose more than 25 percent, to 160 attacks. Security for Afghans gets worse every year the US is there: in 2005, there were an estimated 1,000 casualties and, in 2006, that number surged to 4,000. The United Nations has reported that 2007 is the worst on record: civilian casualties in Afghanistan soared above 8,000, with at least 1,500 innocent men, women and children killed in acts of violence....
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us)
Jesse Laird is a research analyst on US-Afghan Conflict for the American Friends Service Committee, and a Masters candidate in Conflict Resolution at Portland State University. Contact him at peacevoicepdx@gmail.com.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
CONSCRIPTION: A TRAGIC MISTAKE
By Larry Gara
(850 words)
This commentary is unpublished.
If the United States continues on its path toward the militarization of society, sooner or later there will be serious calls to reactivate the draft. Indeed, the law now requires all young men to register with Selective Service at age 18, and draft boards wait on a standby basis. The military is stretched to the limit, the country is in a state of nearly permanent war, and reactivating the draft offers a tempting solution. It would be a tragic mistake...
....The Supreme Court has rejected arguments that the draft is unconstitutional, even though the 13th Amendment specifically outlaws “involuntary servitude.” Despite the fact that dictatorships inevitably impose conscription, some still insist that Selective Service is inherently democratic. Some also argue that a draft makes peace more likely because, when every family is affected, everyone resists the idea of going to war. History and experience do not support this idea. The draft certainly did not keep us out of war in Korea or Vietnam, for example. Indeed, having a reliable and renewable supply of manpower is more likely to encourage elements in any government that support military adventures. Instead, we need an imaginative foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy and strengthens international agreements...
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us).
Larry Gara, Emeritus Professor of History at Wilmington College, is the author or editor of six books and numerous scholarly articles.
(850 words)
This commentary is unpublished.
If the United States continues on its path toward the militarization of society, sooner or later there will be serious calls to reactivate the draft. Indeed, the law now requires all young men to register with Selective Service at age 18, and draft boards wait on a standby basis. The military is stretched to the limit, the country is in a state of nearly permanent war, and reactivating the draft offers a tempting solution. It would be a tragic mistake...
....The Supreme Court has rejected arguments that the draft is unconstitutional, even though the 13th Amendment specifically outlaws “involuntary servitude.” Despite the fact that dictatorships inevitably impose conscription, some still insist that Selective Service is inherently democratic. Some also argue that a draft makes peace more likely because, when every family is affected, everyone resists the idea of going to war. History and experience do not support this idea. The draft certainly did not keep us out of war in Korea or Vietnam, for example. Indeed, having a reliable and renewable supply of manpower is more likely to encourage elements in any government that support military adventures. Instead, we need an imaginative foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy and strengthens international agreements...
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us).
Larry Gara, Emeritus Professor of History at Wilmington College, is the author or editor of six books and numerous scholarly articles.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
IT TAKES A (FORMER) PRESIDENT
By Fred Struckmeyer
(434 words)
This Commentary is Unpublished
Jimmy Carter has just gone to Damascus to talk to the Hamas leadership—the very people whom the current Israeli government has refused to talk to. Or, when it does talk, it is always from a top-dog standpoint. Someone may point out that the Palestinians have been a bottom-dog position pretty much since 1948, but their situation has very much worsened in recent months. A fuel cut-off from Israel is the latest sign of this.
Former President Carter was vilified, several years ago, when the published a book entitled Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. The title alone was enough to outrage many in Israel and, especially, in the United States. Comparing the situation of the Palestinians to that of pre-1990 blacks in South Africa was beyond the pale, they alleged. Israel is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. It has necessarily had to take somewhat drastic measures to protect itself against Palestinian and other Arab enemies. And these days it has a major worry in the form of a bellicose Iran, who may be on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons.
The real objection to Carter’s book seems to be its even-handedness...
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us).
Fred Struckmeyer is Chair of the Philosophy Department at West Chester University.
(434 words)
This Commentary is Unpublished
Jimmy Carter has just gone to Damascus to talk to the Hamas leadership—the very people whom the current Israeli government has refused to talk to. Or, when it does talk, it is always from a top-dog standpoint. Someone may point out that the Palestinians have been a bottom-dog position pretty much since 1948, but their situation has very much worsened in recent months. A fuel cut-off from Israel is the latest sign of this.
Former President Carter was vilified, several years ago, when the published a book entitled Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. The title alone was enough to outrage many in Israel and, especially, in the United States. Comparing the situation of the Palestinians to that of pre-1990 blacks in South Africa was beyond the pale, they alleged. Israel is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. It has necessarily had to take somewhat drastic measures to protect itself against Palestinian and other Arab enemies. And these days it has a major worry in the form of a bellicose Iran, who may be on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons.
The real objection to Carter’s book seems to be its even-handedness...
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us).
Fred Struckmeyer is Chair of the Philosophy Department at West Chester University.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Our Money is Off to War
By Randy Schutt
(687 words)
(687 words)
A longer version of this article, with detailed references and four graphs (also available), is posted on Daily Kos
Massive federal deficits, not enough money for social programs. Where have all our tax dollars gone?
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, $549 billion --or 52.7% of discretionary federal funds --went to the military. Discretionary funds exclude expenditures for Social Security, Medicare, and federal highways since these programs are paid from dedicated taxes maintained in separate trust funds, as well as interest paid on the national debt which is not "discretionary." Discretionary funds are derived from our income taxes, corporation taxes, excise taxes, and estate taxes.
In the current year (FY2008), military spending is estimated to be $604 billion -- an unprecedented expenditure. This represents an average of about $5,300 from each household. Military spending in inflation-adjusted dollars is now 58% greater than in FY2000, greater than at any time during the Cold War, and even greater than during the peak spending years of the Vietnam War and the Korean War.
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us).
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, $549 billion --or 52.7% of discretionary federal funds --went to the military. Discretionary funds exclude expenditures for Social Security, Medicare, and federal highways since these programs are paid from dedicated taxes maintained in separate trust funds, as well as interest paid on the national debt which is not "discretionary." Discretionary funds are derived from our income taxes, corporation taxes, excise taxes, and estate taxes.
In the current year (FY2008), military spending is estimated to be $604 billion -- an unprecedented expenditure. This represents an average of about $5,300 from each household. Military spending in inflation-adjusted dollars is now 58% greater than in FY2000, greater than at any time during the Cold War, and even greater than during the peak spending years of the Vietnam War and the Korean War.
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us).
Randy Schutt is Vice-President of Cleveland Peace Action and author of Inciting Democracy: A Practical Proposal for Creating a Good Society.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Earth Day and War
By Tom H. Hastings
(600 words)
This Commentary is Unpublished.
It was still dark on Earth Day, 1996, and we were out in the northern boreal forest of Wisconsin at a military facility, committing felonies. Indeed, by the end of the day we were charged with two felonies each, and facing 15 years in prison each. Sabotage (10 years) and Destruction of Property (5 years). All in a day’s work for peace and the Earth...
...This is a system that defiled democracy and caused cancer. We proved the anti-democracy aspect by our political activism in Wisconsin and Michigan—scarcely a politician from either state could be found who supported the two-state system. We proved the ecological and health problems by a successful 1984 federal lawsuit (State of Wisconsin and Marquette County, Michigan versus the U.S. Navy and “honorable” Casper Weinberger).
But the U.S. Navy did then what it continues to do today—when threatened with environmental laws it and all branches of the military claim national security and a cloak wraps their actions...
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us).
Tom H. Hastings is author of Ecology of War and Peace: Counting Costs of Conflict, and several other books. He is core faculty in the Portland State University Conflict Resolution Masters degree program and may be reached at hastings@pdx.edu.
(600 words)
This Commentary is Unpublished.
It was still dark on Earth Day, 1996, and we were out in the northern boreal forest of Wisconsin at a military facility, committing felonies. Indeed, by the end of the day we were charged with two felonies each, and facing 15 years in prison each. Sabotage (10 years) and Destruction of Property (5 years). All in a day’s work for peace and the Earth...
...This is a system that defiled democracy and caused cancer. We proved the anti-democracy aspect by our political activism in Wisconsin and Michigan—scarcely a politician from either state could be found who supported the two-state system. We proved the ecological and health problems by a successful 1984 federal lawsuit (State of Wisconsin and Marquette County, Michigan versus the U.S. Navy and “honorable” Casper Weinberger).
But the U.S. Navy did then what it continues to do today—when threatened with environmental laws it and all branches of the military claim national security and a cloak wraps their actions...
(to examine the full text for possible publication, contact us).
Tom H. Hastings is author of Ecology of War and Peace: Counting Costs of Conflict, and several other books. He is core faculty in the Portland State University Conflict Resolution Masters degree program and may be reached at hastings@pdx.edu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)