Please note that this People's Forum does not
support nor condemn any of the entries shown here.
The messages posted are entirely the opinions of
those who sent them in. The editors, however,
will remove or modify messages that are hostile or
offensive to targeted persons or groups.

Vieques is an island- municipality of Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico is called a commonwealth of the United
States, but it would be a mistake to assume it has
the same political relation with the US
that countries in the British Commonwealth have
with GB. The US - PR relationship is strictly
colonial.

The US Navy has conducted a genocidal policy
against Puerto Ricans in Vieques in a long-term
attempt to displace the native population, and
retain the island as a training camp. Throughout
the years, the US Navy has succeeded in reducing
the native Vieques population from close to
30,000 to less than 10,000, and has forcibly
grabbed almost 70% of the land. Vieques, according
to US Navy top brass, constitutes their "jewels
of the crown".

For many years the US Navy has poisoned the
Vieques soil and waters with continuous bombing
using all kinds of highly polluting ordinance. The
cancer rate in the shrinking Vieques population is
by far the highest in Puerto Rico. Its policy
towards the island-municipality is very
reminiscent of the "indian reservation" policies
perpetrated against the native nations by the
armed forces in the United States.

The killing of a Vieques resident by a stray bomb
has caused an eruption of indignation in all of
Puerto Rico that has brought to the surface the
decades-long struggles of the Vieques community
against the genocidal pretentions of the US Navy.
It has unleashed a strong defiance of the US Navy
which has materialized in a campaign of civil
disobedience, with hundreds of Puerto Ricans
moving into the beaches the US Navy uses for
target practice. This action has already caused
the Eisenhower battle group to turn around and
perform their exercises elsewhere in
unpopulated areas of the US. This March, the next
battle group, the Washington, will be sailing
towards Vieques, and the US Navy is insisting the
US Federal authorities will arrest all Puerto
Ricans occupying the beaches, and will resume its
deadly bombardment.

We need all the help we can get from people of
good will throughout the world, and especially in
the United States. If your fellow organizations
are interested in putting their moral and material
support behind this uneven struggle between a
peaceful people fighting for their most basic
human rights, for land, justice and peace, please
contact me at this address. I will supply you with
as much information as you need, and an
extensive list of religious, civic and political
organizations which are in the forefront of this
struggle.

Thank you.

Manuel Otero
Vieques, Puerto Rico

-------------------------------------------------------------
PS: 3 years later, CNN headline:

"Navy launches last Vieques training mission"

The date is now January 15, 2003.


Editors

WHY DOES THE LAWYER HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL LIES?

"Why does the lawyer have the right to tell lies?
Why doesn't he defend on the basis of truth? After
all, for the lawyer who knows the laws and has a
flexible mind, it isn't so difficult to exploit
the imperfection of the ever-growing quantity of
laws or the mistakes of the police. Furthermore
any kind of extremism of medical practice is used
(the condition of temporary insanity etc.) for the
justification in legal proceedings. The lawyer is
not interested in truth - he is interested in
winning the case. After all, that is his
profession, this determines his well being. And
after all, the law should protect society and not
those who commit crimes. An even if the criminal
is mentally ill why is he protected in greater
measure than the victims are?"

(from Change of God's Law by Man by Vlad Parkhom)
see below:

http://www.geocities.com/vladparkhom/

OUR-SIDE the way to world peace

http://www.our-si
de.com/ good page!

INTRODUCTION
In the beginning you were born; in the end, you
will die.
The "In-between" is called "life".
Have a dream and then follow it. If you don't have
a dream... adopt mine!
Let's leave this world a better place than we
found it!
While you are here, you will have many loyalties.
This book invites you to add one more... to draw
one larger circle in your mind and join together
in thoughts and prayers and purpose with All Other
Human Beings to form "OUR SIDE" - "THE HUMAN SIDE"
with five common missions and one common goal for
all - that finally PEACE MAY PREVAIL ON EARTH

CHINA, HUMAN RIGHTS CHAMPIONS?

How can we make China, a nation of very political
human beings, into champions of Human Rights? It
has already happened in Europe, the US, India,
even in the new Iran, to a degree. Why not China
with a new Cultural Revolution of Human Rights?
It would revolutionize the world.

??????

LOST OR FOUND?

Some people need to stop at safe harbors, visit
with friends, join societies, political parties,
even religious groups; others cannot rest, stop,
or meditate, but go and seek on their journeys
like restless souls beyond the safe harbors of
social acceptance, of friends and family. These
are the explorers, not knowing where they are
going, unafraid and willing to take the risk;
these people you will find on the fringes of
society, maybe holding menial jobs, of low
station, or wandering alone in the mountains or
the deserts. But they are the most precious to
us, because it is through them that we gain the
wealth of new worlds, and through whom we reach
into our future.

AUGUST 26, 15:31 EDT

http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTI
D=ASIA&
STORYID=APIS76K1M6G%0D%0A0

Report: China Expels Tibetan Monks

BEIJING (AP) ‹ Officials in Chinese-ruled Tibet
have expelled monks from
Tibetan Buddhism's holiest shrine and ransacked
homes looking for pictures
of the Dalai Lama, a monitoring group reported
Saturday.

Government teams began house-to-house searches in
Tibet's capital, Lhasa,
last month and have thrown religious objects and
pictures of the Dalai Lama
into the Tsangpo River, the London-based Tibetan
Information Network
reported.

Primarily targeting Communist Party members and
government employees,
including teachers, the general population has
also been ordered to teach
children atheism, the group said.

The actions are part of a 4-year-old campaign
intended to break the
fervently Buddhist Tibetan people's allegiance to
the Dalai Lama, Tibet's
temporal and spiritual leader who fled to India 41
years ago amid a failed
uprising against Chinese rule.

Party and government leaders decided to renew the
campaign at a meeting in
April in Chengdu, the Sichuan provincial capital,
Tibet Information Network said.

It added that they were likely motivated by the
escape to India in January
of the Karmapa, a high-ranking cleric China hoped
to use to win over Tibetans.

In stepping up the campaign, leaders at the
meeting pinpointed religion as
the main ``element of destruction'' in Tibetan
society, the group said,
citing sources it did not identify.

The Buddhist clergy, a target of the campaign from
the start, appears to
have come under renewed pressure. Last month
officials expelled 30 monks
from the Jokhang Temple in central Lhasa, the
group said.

The 1,300-year-old Jokhang is one of Tibetan
Buddhism's oldest shrines and
its most sacred. The group said the government has
set a limit of 120 monks
for the temple but is not allowing any who leave
to be replaced.

Officials with the Tibetan government and its
religious affairs bureau could
not be reached by telephone for comment as offices
were closed for the weekend.

The renewed campaign has also placed officials
under increased scrutiny. A
front-page editorial in the government-run Tibet
Daily on July 4 threatened
officials with fines if they take part in
religious activities and listed a
telephone number to attract informants, the group
said.

Already, families in Lhasa have withdrawn 17
children from schools in India,
the group said. With monasteries, the traditional
seats of learning, gutted
by Chinese rule and under severe limits, many
Tibetans go to India to
receive a religious education unavailable in
Tibet.

Subject: Crash Course in Mid East History

I don't know if this is true or not, or if this
can lead to peace or not... but I do think the
truth seems to have gotten lost n the madness in
the Middle East (as it usually does in politics!)

THE BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT
TODAY...(takes 1.5 mins to read)

Nationhood and Jerusalem:
Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two
thousand years before the rise of Islam.
Arab refugees in Israel began identifying
themselves as part of a Palestinian people in
1967, two decades after the establishment of the
modern State of Israel.
Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews
have had dominion over the land for one thousand
years with a continuous presence in the land for
the past 3,300 years. The only Arab dominion
since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than
22 years.
For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the
Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the
capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.
Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they
never sought to make it their capital, and Arab
leaders did not come to visit.
Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach,
the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not
mentioned once in the Koran.
King David founded the city of Jerusalem.Mohammed
never came to Jerusalem.
Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with
their backs toward Jerusalem.

Arab and Jewish Refugees:
In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to
leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge
the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left
without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The Jewish
refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due
to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.
The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in
1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The
number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is
estimated to be the same.
Arab refugees were intentionally not absorbed or
integrated into the Arab lands to which they
fled, despite the vast Arab territory.
Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War
II, theirs is the only refugee group in the
world that has never been absorbed or integrated
into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees
were completely absorbed into Israel, a country
no larger than the state of New Jersey.

The Arab - Israeli Conflict:
The Arabs are represented by eight separate
nations, not including the Palestinians. There is
only one Jewish nation.
The Arab nations initiated all five wars and
lost.Israel defended itself each time and won.
The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the
destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has
given the Palestinians most of the West Bank
land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority,
and has supplied them with weapons.
Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were
desecrated and the Jews were denied access to
places of worship.
Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites
have been preserved and made accessible to people
of all faiths.

The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs:
Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed
before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on
before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues
were destroyed by the Jordanians.
The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians
systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish
cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced
an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from
visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

****These are incredible times. We have to ask
what our role should be. What will we tell our
grandchildren we did when there was a turning
point in Jewish destiny, an opportunity to make a
difference.
Start now. Send this to 20 other people you know
and ask them to send it to twenty others. Jew and
non-Jew it doesn't matter. The truth and the
cause of peace are universal values we all share.

Peace on Earth.

WORLD PARADOX

Can we truly believe that to kill a man in the name
of Allah in this modern age will send him straight
to Heaven? Is this not an ancient paradox? Maybe
the biggest in the world? With this killing, who
is the true infidel? This is a paradox which
must be solved by us, or our world will flounder
surely. Allah loves the peace maker says the
Prophet. In the name of Allah, give Peace. It is time: Stop killing.

THE SPIRIT OF FREEDOM
http://www.freedom.com/spirit_frame.htm

Our company founder, R.C. Hoiles, left a legacy
based on the principles of voluntaryism and the
libertarian philosophy. Those legacy values —
Integrity, Self Responsibility, Respect for
Individual Freedom, Community and Life-Long
Learning — are the bedrock on which Freedom
Communications operates today. We call it the
Freedom Way.

WHAT ME, POLITICAL!!?

Hi Everybody,

We couldn't stop Dubya even with the popular
vote, but we can do something
about his awful cabinet nominees. If you care
anything about human rights
and preserving nature, there's an EASY, quick way
to make your voice heard.

Log on to the sites below to email your
representative in the Senate. These
scary nominations require a serious challenge
from responsible senators so I
urge you to take a moment.

Read below for more info. Thanks! -- Hildy

********************************************


Happy New Year from ActForChange!


You are receiving this update because you
previously sent an e-mail through
ActForChange.com. Your continued engagement is
needed to challenge two
particularly controversial nominations to
President-Elect Bush's cabinet,
the nominations of Senator John Ashcroft to serve
as Attorney General and Gale Norton to serve as
Secretary of the Interior.


Throughout the 2000 election, candidate Bush
promised to be a "uniter" for
our country, not a "divider." When a partisan
Supreme Court narrowly
awarded the election to George W. Bush by a slim
5-4 decision, President-elect Bush pledged to bring the country together.


His nomination of Senator Ashcroft -- one of the
right wing's leading lights
-- to serve as Attorney General exposes Bush's
obligation to the
fundamentalist activists who propelled him to the
Republican nomination.


His nomination of Gale Norton -- who the League
of Conservation Voters calls
a "throwback to the James Watt era -- one of the
darkest periods of natural
resource exploitation" -- exposes Bush's
obligations to the mining, grazing,
tree-cutting and drilling industries who seek
unfettered access to public lands.


Please add your voice to this effort by joining
us in our campaign to reject
the Ashcroft and Norton nominations -- this
year's first critical fights for justice and the environment.

Click here to urge your Senators to join the
Block Ashcroft Campaign.

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cf
m?itemid=10494

Click here to urge your Senators to join the
Block Norton Campaign.

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cf
m?itemid=10495

There is strength in numbers! So once you take
action, please forward this
e-mail to friends and associates so they can
speak out too. Confirmation
hearings are expected to be completed soon after
the Inauguration on January 20, so time is of the essence.


The next few weeks are also our last opportunity
to urge President Clinton
to enact some critical new policies. Here are
just a few of the Activism Alerts currently
posted on ActForChange that we want
President Clinton to
complete in the weeks before he leaves office.
He does respond to public
pressure, and the thousands of messages sent to
him via ActForChange already
helped convince him to protect the Steller Sea
Lion, clean up dirty diesel engines, and enact
the roadless area protection plan.

Click on these links to make your voice heard on
these remaining issues:

Support International Treaty to Ban Land Mines

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cf
m?ItemId=1211

Protect Arctic Wildlife Refuge From Oil Drilling

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cf
m?ItemId=1244

Release Leonard Peltier

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cf
m?ItemId=9579

Help Rape Survivors Get Needed Treatment

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cf
m?ItemId=10448

With appreciation,
Michael Kieschnick

President, Working Assets

****************************************************
Our Privacy Guarantee:


1) Working Assets does not share your e-mail
address with outsie organizations.

2) You received this e-mail because you shared
your e-mail address with
Working Assets. If you prefer not to receive the
ActForChange newsletter, please e-mail us at unsubcribe@actforchange.com
and type "unsubscribe" in
the subject line.

From Express Online: Feb 2-8, 2001

THE CULTURE CLUB

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/archive/020201/cover1_020201.html

The Culture Club:
Q & A with Kaiping Peng

"The phrase 'shit happens' captures the essence of
Asian wisdom: Don't blame the reality, because the
reality is nature, and nature has its own course."

By Timothy Beneke


"...My friend Michael Morris and I did several
experiments in which subjects watch
computer-animated fish swim by on a computer
screen. We found that Euro-American subjects are
more likely to understand the behavior of fish in
terms of their assumed inner traits and
dispositions. If I show a fish moving away from a
school of fish, Euro-Americans will say that the
fish is asserting its independence, while Chinese
subjects are more likely to believe it’s been
expelled by the school. And if there is a fish by
itself and four fish together, Euro-Americans will
focus their attention on the lone fish, while
Chinese will focus on the group of fish. It may be
that because Euro-Americans focus more attention
on the individual and less on the environment,
they explain behavior as based upon individual
traits..."

IN LAND WE TRUST

Dear Bill,
Celsia told me of the Independence Day Speech you
never heard, so I read it. I must admit that I
agree with most of what you say. So in reading your essay, I felt right at home. However, though I don't know you, I hope it is all right for me to point out one flaw in the text, my opinion only. It is regarding Environmental
Rights.
You write:

"When a government does intervene to achieve some
social goal, it can improve the condition of
intended beneficiaries only by trampling on the
rights of all others. This is reprehensible.
What is even more evil is the crushing of
individual rights in the name of environmental
"protection". The Wetlands Act and the Endangered
Species Act share the premise that rocks,
mosquitoes, dirt and owls have "rights"... etc.

The above quote is right in its intent. After
all, humans are of a higher order than the other
living things on this planet; but it fails to
account for the fact that it is not an inalienable
"right" to have human beings destroy the natural
environment, the reality in which we live. Just
because we "own" land, truly acquired by conquest,
by force and coercion, does not give us the right
to destroy it. Land, our environment, our planet,
are ours only in trust. If we do not have a
social contract to preserve this living
environment, then we are failing in our
obligations as trustees. That obligation is
oftentimes masked by the fact that an act of
destruction at the local level ( i.e. dumping
waste water, leaving behind trash, pumping
carcinegens into the atmosphere), is most often
not felt at the local level, but at the level of a
greater collective. Because of this, it puts the
issue of environment more on the plane of roads
and rivers and utilities, all of which are better
managed in common trust, through government
action, then by individual market forces, through
private action.
So, if one is a land owner, then he or she is a
trustee in a common trust, it is his or her
obligation to be conscious of this trustee
requirement; and because it is the role of
government to preserve the social contract, to
preserve our rights, then it is obligatory for
this government to prevent individuals from
polluting and destroying the environment for all
of us. We do say: In God we Trust. Then it is
the same responsibility as conscious and thinking
human beings to say: In Land, or water or air, we
Trust. That is our responsibility to each other
as human beings. For my air, my water, my food,
my land, to be free of destructive pollution and
be a viable living ecosystem, is an inalienable
right, not only for me, but for all future
generations.
So, in closing, to preserve the environment of my
planet is a right that is all important to me, and
I will defend it. As a thinking and conscious
human being, I cannot let someone else's
"principle", good or faulty, trespass on my rights
to having a clean habitat. And if this trespass
has taken place, then I have been coerced, and
demand restitution: to clean up my environment.
(Kind of like having a roommate: If he dirties up
your kitchen, have him clean it up!) And, if my
government fails to do this, as per our social
contract, then I feel it is failing my rights, and
perhaps it should be abolished.

I hope you find these thoughts interesting.
Always enjoyable for me to discover another
thinking human being.


All the best,

Ivan Alexander
********

Ivan:

In a message dated 03/04/2001 4:13:27 PM Eastern
Standard Time, Humancafe writes:

<< So I don't see the environmental movement as a
threat, rather as awareness building instead. Not
all private handling of lands in the past were
constructive, even by the native peoples of
historical and primitive societies. Overgrazing,
over cutting, slashing and burning, over mining,
have all had their negative effects.
Desertification of Africa, the dust bowl of
America in the 30's, the lack of natural growth
forests in Europe, loss of natural habitats in the
rain forests, are not the results of good
management. >>

I agree. But in principle private ownership
produces better, not perfect, results. I favor
protection of the environment, not by fiat but by
strict defense of property rights. That was the
point I was trying to make in my essay. Perhaps I
should do some further work to make this more
clear. By the way, there is a fringe element in
the environmental movement that is anti-humanity.
If you can get a copy, read George Reisman's essay
The Toxicity of Environmentalism. Professor
Resiman may be contacted at Pepperdine University,
where he is chair of the Economics Department. I
am sending him a copy of this memo. His email
address is shown in the "Copy To" section above.
(greisman@pepperdine.edu)

Regards,


Bill Ballou
*******

EARTH ALERT, ALASKA OIL

An Earth Alert from ActForChange

We hope you'll join our urgent campaign to stop an
environmental outrage our president has made a top
priority.

In a deeply cynical maneuver, President Bush is
citing California's short-term energy crisis in an
effort to push through approval of long-term oil
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
one of the nation's most important and fragile
wildlife breeding zones. It is up to everyone who
cares about our environment to step forward and
take action on this crucial issue.
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=124


The original idea behind the Refuge's creation was
to save an area of pure wilderness, in which there
would be no maps, virtually no roads and no
development. When the Bush team says it can drill
In such wilderness without harming it, it's like
saying you can do online trading in church on your
Palm Pilot without disturbing anyone. It violates
the very ethic of the
place."

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=124

THE INDEPENDENCE DAY SPEECH I NEVER HEARD
but wish that I had


Thomas Jefferson in June of 1776, serving as a
member of a committee to draft a Declaration of
Independence of the thirteen colonies, penned
these now famous words:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bonds which have connected them with another, and
to assume among the powers of the earth, the
separate and equal station to which the laws of
nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that
they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation. We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to
secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed. That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive to these ends, it
is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness. . . .

In these few words Jefferson established the ideas
upon which a new Nation was to be founded, stating
both the necessity for a foundation and the
principles upon which that foundation was to rest.
The essence of this powerful first paragraph of
the Declaration is the idea that humans have
inherent individual rights and that governments
exist solely to protect these rights. The United
States of America was the first Nation to be
founded explicitly on a philosophy.

Now, on the 222nd anniversary of the adoption by
the thirteen colonies of that now-famous
Declaration, I wish to reflect on the meaning of
Jefferson's words. What is the philosophy that
serves as the Nation's foundation "most likely to
effect [men's] safety and happiness"?

When Jefferson said "We hold these truths to be
self-evident (emphasis added): ..." and that men
are "endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights…", he meant there could be no
disagreement among the signers of the Declaration
of Independence on the question of "rights".
Neither Jefferson nor the founders used the term
human rights, a term that illustrates today's
cultural decay. To Jefferson and the other
founders it was "self-evident" that the concept of
rights applies only to a conceptual being, namely
men or women (collectively referred to as "men"
but designated only as individuals, not as members
of a group). By unalienable rights he meant that
these rights are part of your nature. You cannot
divorce (alienate) yourself from these rights even
if you wish to be so separated.

Thus, rights that we have because we are human are
limited to those that are unalienable, those that
are part of our nature. It is not part of nature
to own an automobile, to have the benefits of
advanced technology, to have a right to economic
development or to achieve a single volitional
objective. Things that are rights are part of
immutable human nature. Things that are the
result of human will, human thought, human effort
may be desirable, but they are not rights.

Liberals will wail that my words are unfeeling.
So be it. But Liberals cannot distinguish what is
part of nature from what is man-made. They forget
that civilization (and our government) has a
philosophical basis. They believe they can
achieve good because they feel that they can.
They are wrong. Good is accomplished by
respecting reality, not by railing against it.
The philosophical basis for "western civilization"
(which today includes Japan, the Pacific Rim, much
of Central and South America and most of the
United States outside of the beltway) was
delineated by Aristotle. He said identification
does not permit contradictions. A is A. An
entity is what it is and cannot simultaneously be
anything other than itself. This is the
acknowledgment that existence is hierarchically
superior to consciousness, that reality is
whatever it is regardless of what you may think or
feel. To create good (to solve a problem)
requires first that you learn the facts, second
that you discover connections not previously known
and finally that you act on the basis of your
thoughts. This means you must be free to think:
have a right to Liberty and be free to act: to
Pursue Happiness. Human freedom is based on the
nature of human thought. Thoughts cannot be
coerced. Human action should not be coerced: this
is the ethic of a free society and its basis, the
conceptual power of the human mind, is the root
cause of human progress.

When you think and act and the result is not what
you predicted, you must think again. If you root
out all contradictions, if you are scrupulous in
your commitment to the facts, you may solve a
difficult problem. But you may again fail. And
fail a third, a fourth or any number of times.
Thought is volitional. It is subject to error.
But sometimes a genius discovers the properties of
radium or invents a vaccine to cure a rampant
disease, such as polio. These successes are
triumphs of human thought. They are not triumphs
of human will unaccompanied by commitment to the
facts. Calculus was not invented by mere whim nor
an airplane by refuting the Law of Gravity.

This is a lesson not yet learned by Liberals
(those who favor government-coerced "solutions" to
human problems). Since Liberals confuse the
man-made with the metaphysically given, they
imagine that there is such a thing as a "right to
economic development" or that there are such
things as "women's rights" or "minority rights".
Rights are those elements of life that each of us
has as an individual. Your rights and mine are
identical, only those that are "unalienable" and
no others without regard to race, physical
condition or gender. This means that government
has no moral justification to interfere in human
commerce for any reason. Government's sole
legitimate function is to "secure" (protect)
"unalienable (individual) rights".

It is proper for government to protect you from
me. This is an assertion of your right to
Liberty, the right not to be coerced and the right
to use your own mind to choose your own values.
It is not just for government to protect me from
myself. Such "protection" is a denial of my right
to choose my own values.

It is not proper for our government to tax me to
provide you with a television set, or to provide
you with food and shelter. It is your
responsibility to provide your own food and your
own shelter, just as I must provide for myself.
If you are responsible for your own welfare, you
must be free to act on the basis of your thoughts,
provided you do not attempt to coerce me. It is
up to you to select and to pursue the values you
need to sustain your own life. Your right to
Liberty recognizes that you must be free to select
these values; your right to the Pursuit of
Happiness recognizes that you must be free to
pursue the values you have chosen. Jefferson
wisely did not assert your right to achievement of
happiness, nor of any other goal that you may
pursue.

When a government does intervene to achieve some
social goal, it can improve the condition of
intended beneficiaries only by trampling on the
rights of all others. This is reprehensible.
What is even more evil is the crushing of
individual rights in the name of environmental
"protection". The Wetlands Act and the Endangered
Species Act share the premise that rocks,
mosquitoes, dirt and owls have "rights". This
premise denies that humans have rights but asserts
that viruses do. Rights exist only in the context
of a conceptual epistemology. They are the
recognition of a particular kind of mind. Since
rocks, mosquitoes, dirt, owls and viruses do not
have a conceptual mentality, the concept of rights
does not apply to them. Thus, the argument of
some environmentalists that Nature has intrinsic
value is invalid. A value is something chosen by
a conceptual being. What is a value requires a
valuer - - one who makes an evaluation. To
determine the value of any aspect of Nature one
must answer the question: "Of value to whom and
for what purpose?". The phrase "intrinsic value"
denies the nature of the human mind and thus is an
attack on your right to think. All values are
subjective. No one can force you to think, and no
one can force you to accept his values. When
governments deny property rights in the name of
the environment, they are denying the nature of
human beings and in Jefferson's words should be
abolished..

The recent collapse of the Soviet Union should
serve notice both to the third world and to the
U.S.A. that socialism fails. It fails because of
its nature, not because it is directed by
well-meaning incompetents or even by evil men. It
fails because it does not recognize the nature of
Man's mind, something that Jefferson did
recognize. It fails as all dirigiste regimes must
fail, because it is based on a false premise. It
fails because it cannot succeed.

The Declaration of Independence is a declaration
not only that men have the right to become
independent from a particular government, namely
Great Britain, but also of the need for an
individual to be independent. This means each
person must function independently, pursuing his
own happiness, creating his own values and
functioning as a member of a free society in
voluntary cooperation and trade with other
similarly independent persons. This fact of life
requires a government precisely because some
people do not wish to be independent, to earn
their own bread. Jefferson's view was that
governments are needed to protect the rights and
the property of the productive from the ravishes
of the unproductive, dependent and envious. To
assert that a dictator, a bureaucracy or any group
of planners can control an economy is a denial of
the nature of the human mind. Jefferson knew that
only you can think for you. Bureaucrats cannot
think for you. Hillary cannot think for you.

Whenever a government moves to use coercion to
guarantee ends, it moves from its role as
protector of rights to become the enemy of rights.
When it attempts to do so, it must fail because it
cannot control individual thoughts.

By their nature men must think for themselves. A
corollary is the division of labor, specialization
that permits unending improvement in mankind's
conditions of material well being. But when
governments intervene, the only thing that they
can control is your actions. This control takes
the form of prohibitions and regulations, since it
is impossible to mandate solutions that require
new thought. When you figure a way around the
rules, legislation soon follows to restrict
further your freedom to act. As you are boxed
into a smaller and smaller cell, you concentrate
more and more on pure survival at the expense of
creating new solutions. If you can escape, you do.
This escape is called a Brain Drain. The most
productive are the first to leave. The net result
is the blunting of human progress in the name of
reaching the goal of the intervention. In
extreme cases, where creativity atrophies enough,
the entire culture collapses from intellectual
rot. Witness the former Soviet Union.

Not only must men think for themselves but all men
can think: the ditch digger can think of ways to
make his digging more productive just as the
manager of an enterprise can think of new ways to
capture business. Witness the United States. The
largest rate of increase in national wealth in
world history occurred in North America in the
nineteenth century. Why? Because, for a while,
the United States was a free Nation. Each person
knew he had to produce for his own welfare. This
freedom created new, higher standards of living
for everyone, even those less productive.

Today it is less obvious that the majority
understand their moral responsibility to be
independent. Let us hope that someone in a future
Independence Day speech can reflect on the wonders
created when the United States of America returned
to its roots, the day we adopted a Constitutional
Amendment providing for complete Separation of
State and Economy.

July 4, 1998 ©
F. William Ballou
(Work in progress, copyright protected

ASIAN WOMEN'S RESOURCE EXCHANGE (AWORC)
http://www.jca.apc.org/aworc/index.html

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of
Afghanistan (RAWA)
http://www2.rawa.org/

Please note that I was forbidden from entering
RAWA, so suspect they are being jammed. (ed.

http://www.SaveBioGems.org

"Bushwhacking in the next four years. Civil
rights and reproductive choice I suppose we could
win back in time (though not the lives lost along
the way), but the waters and wild lands
devastated will never come back. So I've taken a
vow to spend at least some part of every week
protecting the truths and places I treasure..."

--from an open letter by Barbara Kingsolver,
AlterNet

This shows how far we still have to go, to stop
the killing.
*********************************************

Syrian President Seeks Pope's Support

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON
.c The Associated Press

DAMASCUS, Syria (May 5) - Syria's president
welcomed Pope John Paul II today with calls for
him to take the Arabs' side in their dispute with
Israel, referring to what he described as Jewish
persecution of Jesus Christ in a hard-line address
that reflected persistent hatreds in the region.

John Paul flew to Damascus on the second-leg of a
three-nation pilgrimage, saying he was bringing an
''ardent prayer of hope'' for peace in the Middle
East. He asked President Bashar Assad to ''spare
no effort'' for peace and cooperation and listened
impassively to a translator as the Syrian leader
spoke in Arabic.

It was certainly one of the bluntest welcoming
addresses the pope has heard on any of his foreign
trips, including his navigation through Israelis
and Palestinians on a visit to the Holy Land last
year.

''He knows the passions and the sentiments here,''
said Monsignor Robert Stern, an American who heads
the Vatican's Palestinian aid agency. ''He just
goes ahead and does his thing.''

Cheers erupted as the white-robed pope appeared at
the door of his plane and then slowly made his way
down the red-carpeted stairs to the Damascus
airport tarmac, where Assad waited to shake his
hand. The pope, whose pilgrimage retraces the
biblical travels of St. Paul the Apostle, arrived
from Athens, where he worked to defuse tensions
between Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

Improving ties with Islam is a major theme of his
stop in mostly Muslim Syria. John Paul's Syrian
itinerary includes the first visit to a mosque by
a pope. He leaves for Malta on Tuesday.

The 80-year-old pontiff, his face reddening in the
sun, walked slowly, using a cane, with the
36-year-old Assad at his side for the 150 feet to
the terminal. The pope's hands trembled, a symptom
of Parkinson's disease, a progressive neurological
disorder.

Assad was receiving his first major visitor since
taking over from his late father last June. He is
a London-trained ophthalmologist, and some
wondered whether his youth and experience in the
West would mean he would attempt reforms in this
authoritarian country - and whether he had the
standing to control the army and other powerful
forces in Syria.

Sounding like his father, Hafez Assad, the
president sharply criticized Israeli policies,
comparing them to what he said were Jewish attacks
on early Christianity and Islam.

''They tried to kill the principles of all
religions with the same mentality in which they
betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried
to betray and kill the Prophet Muhammad.

''We say we adhere to a just and comprehensive
peace that returns the land to its original
owners, and the return of refugees and the
establishment of an independent Palestinian state
with Jerusalem as its capital,'' Assad said.

In his address, John Paul called for a ''new
attitude of understanding and respect'' among
Muslims, Christians and Jews.

For the most part, only a few yellow-and-white
Vatican flags fluttered in the streets of this
capital of 5 million to mark the first visit by a
pope to Syria. In the Christian neighborhood of
Bab Touma, in the eastern part of the walled old
city, the narrow streets and alleyways were
bedecked with yellow and white.

On Sunday, the pontiff visits the Omayyad Mosque
in Damascus. Christian pilgrims visit the mosque -
which sits on a site that once held a church - to
see a shrine believed to contain the head of St.
John the Baptist.

A planned joint Muslim-Christian prayer at the
mosque was canceled, apparently because of Muslim
sensitivities. But Syria's top Muslim leaders will
meet John Paul at the Omayyad.

On Monday, the pope makes the 40-mile road journey
to Quneitra on the Golan Heights to say a prayer
for peace at a battered Greek Orthodox church. St.
Paul is believed to have passed through Quneitra
on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus.

The Syrians say the church, like the rest of the
town, was sacked by departing Israeli forces in
1974 and refuse to rebuild Quneitra so it can
serve as a reminder of Israel's ''crimes.''

Israel, which says the town was destroyed in
fighting, controls the remainder of the Golan, a
strategic plateau in southwest Syria it captured
in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Peace negotiations
that could put all the Golan back in Syrian hands
have stalled.

At the airport, a banner held by the school
children included this plea in Arabic: ''We want
to live like other children in the world: far from
Israeli occupation.''

Syrian Christians belong to at least half dozen
confessions, with the Greek Orthodox Church
boasting close to 1 million followers, about half
the 2 million Christians in this country of 17
million.

According to tradition, St. Paul converted from
Judaism to Christianity when he had a vision on
the road to Damascus and spent the remainder of
his life preaching the new faith in the Roman
Empire. He was executed in Rome around 67.

AP-NY-05-05-01 1336EDT

Copyright 2001 The Associated Press.

By Ibn on Friday, April 6, 2001 - 09:29 pm:
LIFTING THE VEIL OF TEARS:
by Ibn Warraq

" The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(adopted on December 10, 1948, by the General
Assembly of the United Nations in Paris and
ratified by most Muslim countries) at no point has
recourse to a religious argument. These rights are
based on natural rights, which any adult human
being capable of choice has..."

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/warraq_17_4.html


-------------------------------------------------

Musicians and Fine Artists for World Peace, letter
to Congress:

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives

June 4, 2001

Mr. Alan Moore
1563 Solano Ave. #477
Berkeley California 94707

Dear Mr. Moore:

I am writing to support the efforts of Musicians
and Fine Artists for World Peace to create a more
peaceful world. I am especially appreciative of
your interest in discussing my proposal for the
establishment of a Cabinet-level Department of
Peace. Please feel free to contact me with any
suggestions or comments from group members.

I am pleased to learn that people are working hard
to promote nonviolence. I am aware that you have
the skill, the experience and the commitment to
work towards improving the human condition. I
believe that working cooperatively as a community
of peace-seekers we can look forward to developing
creative and innovative ways to increase the
impact of peace building at all levels of society,
nationally and internationally In the finest
example of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King
Jr., we can learn to confront our enemies with
ahimsa, unconditional love. We can make a
difference, of this I am sure!

Based on these beliefs, I have called for the
establishment of a Cabinet-level Department of
Peace, which shall maintain nonviolence as an
organizing principle. Working at both national
and international levels, it will resolve conflict
in any form with a peaceful, nonviolent
philosophy. It will be orientated toward the
development of human potential, and will endeavor
to promote justice and democratic principles to
expand universal human rights.

Domestically, it will analyze present policies.
The Department will expand successful existing
programs and develop new approaches to deal with
the implements of violence.

The Department of Peace shall be empowered
domestically to address all forms of violence
within our communities. It will advocate on
behalf of women victimized by violence, as well as
address the problems of domestic violence, spousal
abuse, child abuse, and mistreatment of the
elderly. In collaboration with community and
neighborhood organizations, including the schools
in our communities, the Department of Peace shall
assist in the establishment of community based
violence prevention programs. It shall endeavor
to create new policies which are responsive to the
challenges of drug and alcohol abuse, and of
crime.

The escalation of hate crimes in our society is
undeniable. The reports of racial and ethnic
violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and
religiously motivated crimes are consistently
increasing. I believe that working together we can
create hate-free communities. The Department of
Peace will provide for counseling strategies
concerning hate crimes.

We must call upon America's youth for the purpose
of creative peacemaking. The critical thinking
capabilities of grade school, high school and
college students can result in proactive solutions
to the overwhelming presence of violence in our
schools, including the presence of handguns, gang
related violence, racial or ethnic violence and
police-community relations disputes.

You may also be interested to know that the Peace
Day I introduced passed Congress, making January
1, 2001 a day of peace and sharing. The
resolution was introduced in the Senate by Senator
Wellstone. The resolution expresses the sense of
Congress that a day of peace and sharing should be
established at the beginning of each year and
that:

(1) each year should begin with a day of peace and
sharing during which;

(A) people around the world should gather with
family, friends, neighbors, their faith community,
or people of another culture to pledge nonviolence
in the new year and to share in a celebratory new
year meal, and

(B) Americans who are able should match or
multiply the cost of their new year meal with a
timely gift to the hungry at home or abroad in a
tangible demonstration of a desire for increased
friendship and sharing among people around the
world, and

(2) the President should issue a proclamation each
year calling on the people of the United States
and interested organizations to observe such a day
with appropriate programs and activities.


Peace is an achievable goal! Let us continue to
work together to initiate a dialogue on creating a
culture of peace.

Sincerely,

Dennis Kucinich
Member of Congress

Please go to
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/action/peace.htm for
more information on the Department of Peace.

Response to Oct. 26, 2000, post: "CRASH COURSE IN MID EAST HISTORY":

By Kevin on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 10:31 pm:

Ivan: I'm afraid your little history of Israel/Palestine is seriously wrong. Palestine was the ancient Roman name for Israel and Judea, which they had conquered before the birth of Jesus. The Romans called it that after the Philistines who lived in what was once Phoenicia along the Mediterranean coast.

The Romans and then the Byzantines ruled it until its conquest by Muslims in 638. From then until the 20th century--ie, for about 1300 years--it was ruled by various groups of Muslims, except for a period of 87 years from 1100 to 1187 when Christian Crusaders conquered it. It was often a battleground between various Muslim peoples and Christians from the West for centuries.

The Ottoman Turks ruled the country for about 400 years until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, when Palestine became a British protectorate. As late as the 1880s, there were only 25,000 Jews in the country, two thirds of whom lived in Jerusalem, a city that is regarded as the third holiest city in the Muslim world after Mecca and Medina. The vast majority of the population in the country until after WWII, when the British agreed to let Zionists establish the state of Israel, was Muslim.

So the notion that Palestinian Muslims only invented their claim to a Palestinian state following the 1967 Six Day War is absurd. Not that I wish to defend Muslim fundamentalists and terrorists, or what they have done to cause violence and suffering in Israel. But one-sided, inaccurate "history" can only distort the nature of human conflicts and mislead people who should know otherwise.

> THE DEPARTMENT OF PEACE
> July 11, 2001
>
> http://www.house.gov/kucinich/action/peace.htm
>
> Washington, DC -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) today introduced
> legislation to create a cabinet level agency dedicated to peacemaking and
> the study of conditions that are conducive to peace.
>
> "The time for peace is now," Congressman Kucinich said. "At the dawn of a
> new millennium, there is no better time to review age old challenges with
> new thinking that peace is not only the absence of violence, but the
> presence of a higher evolution of human awareness with respect, trust and
> integrity toward humankind. Our founding fathers recognized that peace was
> one of the highest duties of the newly organized free and independent
> states. But too often, we have overlooked the long-term solution of peace
> for instant gratification of war. This continued downward spiral of
> violence must stop to ensure that future generations will live in peace and
> harmony."
>
> Kucinich's legislation to create a Department of Peace focuses on
> individual, group and national responsibilities of holding peace as an
> organizing principle. The Department of Peace will focus on nonmilitary
> peaceful conflict resolutions, prevent violence and promote justice and
> democratic principles to expand human rights. A Peace Academy, similar to
> the five military service academies, would be created; its graduates
> dispatched to troubled areas around the globe to promote nonviolent dispute
> resolutions.
>
> "The challenges inherent in creating a Department of Peace are massive,"
> said Congressman Kucinich. "But the alternatives are worse. Violence at
> home, in the schools, in the media, and between nations has dragged down
> humanity.
>
> It's time to recognize that traditional, militant objectives for peace are
> not working, and the only solution is to make peace the goal of a cabinet
> level agency."
>
> CONTACT:
> Kathie Scarrah
> (202) 226-8139
> (703) 845-2874
>
> ------------
>
> SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE LEGISLATION
>
> Legislation introduced today by Congressman Dennis Kucinich to create a
> Department of Peace includes the following:
>
> Establish a cabinet-level department in the executive branch of the Federal
> Government dedicated to peacemaking and the study of conditions that are
> conducive to both domestic and international peace.
>
> Headed by a Secretary of Peace, appointed by the President with the advice
> and consent of the Senate.
>
> The mission of the Department shall: hold peace as an organizing principle;
> endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human
> rights; strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking; promote the development
> of human potential; work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from
> armed conflict and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution;
> and take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of policies that
> promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent
> intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict and structured
> mediation of conflict.
>
> The Department will create and establish a Peace Academy, modeled after the
> military service academies, which will provide a 4 year concentration in
> peace education. Graduates will be required to serve 5 years in public
> service in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent
> conflict resolution.
>
> The principal officers of the Department, in addition to the Secretary of
> Peace will include; the Under Secretary of Peace; the Assistant Secretary
> for Peace Education and Training; the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Peace
> Activities, the Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities; the
> Assistant Secretary for Technology for Peace; the Assistant Secretary for
> Arms Control and Disarmament; the Assistant Secretary for Peaceful
> Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution; the Assistant Secretary for
> Human and Economic Rights; and a General Counsel.

RE Mid East Conflict:

What causes conflicts among different groups?

Answer: conflict is the result of Imperialist
nations attempting to control vast regions without
having sufficient forces to maintain control.
Concerning the conflict between Palestinians and
Israel:

We know this conflict has nothing to do with
religion because for centuries Jews had lived in
Moslem countries without conflict. For instance,
there was no "Spanish Inquisition" or "Holocaust"
in Arab and Moslem countries against Jews.
Anti-semitism is largely a product of
Christianity.

Historically, the British played the two groups
against each other: Jews and Arabs living in the
British territory of Palestine, just as the
British played Hindus and Moslems against each
other resulting in the creation of the conflict
between Pakistan and India. The same situation
occurred in Northern Ireland: The British playing
Catholics and Protestants against each other.
The principle goes back to the ancient Roman
Imperial technique of conquest: Divide and Rule.

The only way to control conflicts among different
groups is to set up federations where each of the
religious, ethnic, and political groups have some
say. For instance, two Jewish thinkers, in the
years prior to the declaration of Israeli
independence (1948)--Martin Buber and Y.
Leibowitz, one liberal and the other orthodox--
argued for a bi-national state of Jews and Arabs.
Basically, the both wanted to have a federation.
However, this idea was rejected by the extreme
nationalists among Jews and Arabs.

Federalism and federations of states, nations, and
political ideologies is the only method that can
settle disagreements without resort to military
and terrorist conflict.

FEMINISMUNBOUND, as posted on a Yahoo forum:
======================================================================
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 00:27:23 -0000
From: "Dave Tyrrell" <davet84@hotmail.com.au>
Subject: Re: I need your input

Diana,

I congratulate you on your vision (and energy) in proposing a group
which would hopefully transcend some of the less than productive
interactions which bog people down.

The following, I suppose,basically relates to the `vision/mission'
aspect of such a group I suppose. That's where I'm at my best I
think. The old idealist. But it follows along with group theory which
suggests the `forming/norming/storming/ all before the performing of
any group. So `norms' are important. And to me one norm which should
be laid down is mutual respect. This, because it does lead to better
communications and must therefore lead to better outcomes.

It also comes back to what Jolee had written to me (very much so
actually), that it's about time we stopped using the old
confrontationist language.

I did a couple of units in Communication Theory a few years back. I
can remember being optimistic about the world while I was doing it.
The people engaged in the field see the inherent complexity of human
nature and have attempted to delve into it, and to try to come up
with some positive notions as to how human communication can improve.

They've come up with some interesting observations like the notion
that when a person `discloses' things about themselves to others,
there is an inherent risk. That being that the person to whom you are
disclosing will not respond (or dismiss you, or patronise you). Also,
I remembered a term, `rhetorical sensitivity', which I found quite
elegant, which basically means applying care in adjusting what one
says (or writes) to the listener.

I want to emphasise that I don't have any `religious' agenda to
promote. This is all about ethics and getting along.

The above fits in with other things I've come across in recent years.
Like the basic Buddhist 'way', which, when it comes down to it is
about 11 things (actually 12, but the 4th noble truth actually states
that the 'way' to transcending suffering is to follow the eightfold
path):

1. Life is unsatisfactory (I prefer that word, or the word 'stess'
to the usual term people use which is `suffering');
2. The causes of unsatisfactoriness, attachment, aversion, ignorance
(too much love, too much hate)gives rise to an unenlightened view
on life);
3. That unsatisfactoriness can be transcended or overcome;
4. The path to the overcoming of unsatisfactoriness is the eightfold
path.

It's interesting that the indo-aryan derivation of `right' is aret,
which goes right back to the Rg-veda. The indo-European apparently
comes through Rta. Dharma, like rta means 'what holds together'. It
is mostly about an an ethical code. Some of the English words we use
which derive from it are arithmetic, art, rhetoric, worth, rite,
ritual, and right (correct).

The eightfold path then applies to 1. right view; 2. right intention;
3. right speech: 4. right action; 5. right livlihood; 6. right
effort; 7. right mindfulness; and 8. right concentration. It is seen
as a cyclic thing, so 7 and 8 lead back to 1 and back again. I like
to think of rebirth in a non-reincarnation sense, as a daily re-birth
of one's view.

Given all the above, the use of the word `right' in descriptions of
the eightfold path was clearly meant to convey an ethical dimension.
And, to me, all this links in to the notion of `political
correctness'.

Although Buddhism was never meant to be in any way political, with
the rise of the feminist notion of the `personal being political' it
could indeed become a useful `political foundation'. Relating to the
overturning of debate and opposition as the primary ways in which
ideas are promulgated.

I'm particularly interested in the right view, intention, and speech
elements, as these also fit in with consciousness studies which
pinpoint human intention as an important but little understood aspect
of human behaviour. In that sense Buddhism could be seen as an
early `science of intention'.

Consciousness studies are quite closely linked to bio-psychological
studies which zero in on the limbic region of the brain as
our `checks and balances region'. As feelings or `base' reactions to
the world come up through our ancient `reptilian' mind, the limbic or
mammalian part of our brain can intercede (with practice) to filter
what is presented to our neo-mammalian or rational brain. Seems
reasonably consistent to me.

And again it fits into communication theory. Self disclosure is
central to the 'Johari' window model, which is used to show how
relationships develop as one becomes more 'willing to disclose' and
more 'open to feedback'. The model, which derives it's name from the
first names of it's originators Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham suggests
that openness about oneself should lead to 'changes in our behaviour
and ultimately, our interpersonal relationships'.

I checked out the internet and the `johari window' is alive and well…

See … http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/johari/johari_window.html

One prominent communication theorist was and still is David Johnson
who wrote the highly regarded "Reaching Out' (Prentice Hall, about 7
editions so far beginning in 1981). He wrote a great little line
which I had recorded regarding relationships… 'being open with you
plus being open to you equals an open relationship'. But he also
warns that 'you can be too self disclosing'.

I suppose I have changed my behaviour over the years, from being
particularly open when I was young (typical idealistic/humanistic
MBTI, introvert/intuitive/feeling/perception/ person or INFP). I
became less trusting and less likely to be open. But they say that
it is better to err on the side of self restraint than on the side
of self disclosure.

And so the theorists basically elaborate what we all know within
ourself anyway. It seems like communication is another version of the
survival game. Only it's more about survival of credibility and self
esteem. Then again that which involves taking such a risk can lead to
the blossoming of a relationship. It could become a risk which was
worth taking as trust develops.

Now all these theorists I've mentioned have been men. When I did
another unit at Uni, `History of Ideas', I was introduced to the
feminist viewpoint. We had to appraise Plato and Aristotle in the
light of Nancy Tuana's critique that they were guilty of gender bias.
In fact gender bias is inherent in the ideas of the great
philosophers, Hume, Kant, and Schopenhauer etc. But it sparked my
interest. And when seen from a `subtlety of thought' aspect (which is
more Eastern, like Buddhism, Rg-Veda, and Jesus' teachings for that
matter) it all becomes a thing of beauty to me.

In terms of the fields of philosophy the above gets into many
aspects of the subject. Since philosophy relates to metaphysics,
epistemology (how we know things), ethics, esthetics, and politics,
its not a bad start for a personal philosophy methinks. But am I
disclosing too much!!!??

In a way, to me, the depth of thinking which has pervaded the
patriarchal world (has had its benefits, and came out of the male
ability to focus on a task etc) gave us our efficiencies and
scientific breakthroughs etc. Many suffered, through the lack of care
and the utilitarian model. But the future seems more promising to me.
Those focused breakthroughs combined with the subtlety of thought of
the so-called `new age' is a recipe which should, if anything ensure
human survival. But we can't seem to bring it together.

As I said, the more I got into the subtler ideas, the more there
seemed to be connections. Yesterday I was in the `New Dimensions'
website and found the text of an interview with another of the female
theorists whose ideas had `struck me', and who had been the author of
one our texts back in the communication theory studies. That person
is Deborah Tannen (`You Just Don't Understand', `That's Not what I
Meant').

I know this is getting long, but I'd just like to include some
excerpts from that interview.

Deborah Tannen is both smarter and more eloquent than me, so…

In an interview with Michael Toms regarding her latest book
(`Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue, (a transcript of
which is carried on the `New Dimensions' website:
http://www.newdimensions.org/article/tannen.html )

Deborah Tannen said:

[Quote]
While I was on the road, talking publicly about these books, I became
so aware of the way that discourse was being framed. Here I had
written books promoting understanding between women and men, saying
we could have less friction, less hostility and better relationships
if we take into account the different conversational styles and how
they're influenced by gender as well as other things. And it would
always be referred to as "the battle of the sexes," "the gender wars…
…I had done a public conversation with Robert Bly at the Open Center
in New York, and we called it "Toward a Reconciliation Between Women
and Men." Well, somebody who wrote a column about books in a major
newspaper wrote about it, and decided that it was going to be a
debate: "Head-to-head, toe-to-toe, for the first time, Robert Bly and
Deborah Tannen face off!" And when we ended up having a conversation
instead of a fight, the media disappointment was resounding. It was
quite bizarre…

…All of these experiences made me think about why we were approaching
everything as a war-the battle, the conquering, the victory-and it
made me want to explore the deeper impulse of that. The Argument
Culture is not just another book about civility. I certainly
believe that we should try to get more civility in our lives; but
there's something deeper that I'm trying to talk about-the power of
words to frame how you think about things, how you feel about things,
how you perceive the world. The tendency in our culture to use war
metaphors so pervasively, and to frame everything as a metaphorical
battle, influences howwe approach each other in our everyday lives.
We end up thinking problems are insoluble, because we have allowed
the polarized extremes to frame the debate…

It causes people to feel cynical. People end up feeling, "I don't
know what to believe. I read this, and then immediately I read that
critics say it's not true….

(Interviewer…)
You quoted John Dewey: "Democracy begins in conversation." It's a
great quote. Why do you think that's true?

What he had in mind was that people have to be talking about the
issues in their private lives, face-to-face, one-on-one, in order to
be informed and participate in a democracy…
It's quite similar to the problems with our adversarial system of
law. If we force people into enemy positions, and force them to act
like enemies, they continue feeling that animosity long after the
lawyers have gone on to the next case.

(Interviewer)
One of the things that permeates your book, The Argument Culture, is
that this culture of critique, sensationalism and dichotomies creates
an atmosphere of defensiveness and fear, and that's not very good
for our society.

Absolutely. And not good for the individual human spirit. An
atmosphere of animosity spreads like a fever when there's an ethic of
aggression by which, every place you turn, you feel people being
sneered at. So much of journalism now has this assumption that it
should have an edge, it should have attitude. Now, in the past,
attitude could be any kind of attitude, but now attitude means an
aggressive, hostile attitude.

Deborah, do we have a way out of this incredible situation we find
ourselves in?

I am sometimes accused of being too optimistic, but in each of the
institutions that I mentioned there are movements from within to
change things. Journalists are questioning their ethic of attack; the
move within law to alternative dispute resolution is growing; the
field of mediation is the fastest-growing sub-field of law; we read
recently that congresspeople are going off on retreats so they can
learn to get along better. So there's definitely awareness. In
academia, I don't see it yet, but I do see some movements in all
these fields.

Readership and viewership of news is down. Dr. Andrew Weil is
recommending to people that they go on a "news fast." That is going
to wake up the people in the news when they realize that they are
losing readership. I am optimistic that people will begin finding new
ways to approach the world. With consciousness-raising, the people
themselves will find ways to do things differently, if they're aware
enough to stop and think, "Wait a minute, there could be another way
to do this." _

This article has been excerpted from New Dimensions tape #2712, "Stop
Arguing and Start Talking" with Deborah Tannen.

(Back to the `eloquently challenged' Dave…)

In another area of the same website is a statement issued from 1600
scientists including 102 of the 196 the living Scientists who are
Nobel Laureates…

(after detailing their belief about the need for an urgent `rethink'
on behalf of humanity in the areas of material excess, environmental
degradation, the re-allocation of the $1 trillion dollar a year
defence and military spending budget, and the essential need for the
equality of women)…they conclude with theses words…

"A new ethic is required--a new responsibility for caring for
ourselves and for the Earth. We must recognize the earth's limited
capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must
no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great
movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and
reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes"

Incidently I have been `mauled' on another list group for
being `idealistic'. And it was assumed that impracticality
necessarily follows from that.

It would seem to me that it would be impractical not to be idealistic
in this era…!!

So…that's my contribution to the `norming' aspect of your group Diana…
what a rave…huh!!

Regards,
Dave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:23:17 -0600
From: Diana
Subject: Re: I need your input

Dave,

Thank you for all this great input! I wish I didn't have such a long work
day ahead of me. I can't wait to spend some time thinking about all this.
Overall, your thoughts, and those of others you express, dovetail perfectly
with what I've been thinking about.

I've read Deborah Tannen's You Just Don't Understand but was unaware of the
book about debate vs. dialogue. I intend to get it as soon as I can, as it
sounds as if it's exactly in line with things I've been thinking. I was
also interested in the idea of human "intention", as I've noticed
communication breaks down because of differing intentions of the parties.

There's a great book Called Do I Have To Give Up Me To Be Love By You
which, though it's specifically about intimate relationships, does a good
job of helping us differentiate the intention to defend ourselves from the
intention to learn. In defense mode, there is no hope of communication.
Openness and disclosure don't happen in defensive mode. And being
non-defensive doesn't usually happen before trust has been established. But
it's difficult to establish trust without openness and disclosure. A
dilemma.

Another issue concerning intention is that some people, most frequently men
but also some women, have the intention of winning, defeating,
dominating,discouraging, diminishing -- rather than the intention to build
trust or relationship or to understand or to learn. With unstated and
underlying intentions like these, real communication and understanding
becomes impossible.


Adjusting what one says or writes to the listener is an important issue you
mentioned (rhetorical sensitivity) -- and it is made difficult when one
doesn't yet fully understand the listener. And understanding the listener
requires conversing in order to develop understanding. Another dilemma.

I agree that human consciousness is a critical element in all this, and
that's one of the necessary elements I see in members of a group such as the
one I'm envisioning. The capacity for empathy is another. There have been
studies in the field of psychotherapy that show that, on average, men
students in the field are at least five years behind women students in the
capacity for empathy -- and empathy is the singular most important quality
in therapists, and the most predictive of therapeutic outcome. This makes
the average man less able to converse in a way that will lead to productive
conversation in this mythical group -- and yet, we need the input and
experience of men.

We would have to find enough men who already have this capacity, and they
would (presumably) have ideas about how to best help other men develop it.

Speaking of which . . . do you, Toy or Edward have ideas about that? I've
raised three sons with that capacity, but I don't think we can spend 18 or
so years re-raising each and every man in the world.

I'm thinking at this point that this group might turn out to be a sort of
consciousness-raising group, like the early feminist groups. Only this time
we'd be getting sensitized to the experience of many different groups, not
just women's experience. In this sort of group, people speak of their
personal experience, not of studies and statistics and ideological
positions.

I didn't know about Andrew Weil's recommendation of going on a "news fast"
-- but it's a personal technique I've used all my life. I developed this
technique during the Vietnam war and Watergate, and have needed it regularly
ever since. I belong to an international women's activist list that I have
to ration carefully and cannot read on a daily basis.

Don't let the cynics get you down about idealism. Where would we be
without visionaries and idealists? I tend to fall into those categories
also. However, at this point I'm trying to figure out how to implement
small pieces of these visions and ideals in a bit larger arena than my own
personal life, family, professional and friendship circles.

I've always liked Buddhist ethics -- the first negative experience I've had
with a so-called Buddhist was a man on a list recently who claims expertise
and spouts Buddhist concepts, while regularly behaving completely in
opposition to them. But then . . . that's true of plenty of Christians,
Islamics, and all other religious and ideological groups .

I have to get ready for work now. :-(

Diana

===================================================================

To my dear friends, I believe that we can SAVE the Arctic Refuge from

destruction in the interest of big corporations. Please take the time to

read the letter below and add your voice to STOP the exploitation.

Thanks,

Hildy


----- Original Message -----

From: Robert Redford <members@nrdcaction.org>

To: <hmesnik@nyc.rr.com>

Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 11:41 AM

Subject: Message from Robert Redford on Energy Security


Dear Fellow NRDC Member,


It is understandable that we Americans feel an almost reflexive need

for unanimity in trying times like these. As a nation, we are rightly

consumed with responding to the terrorist attacks on September 11th.

But, at some point -- and I think we're beginning to get there -- we

need to take a long-term view even as we are reacting to the current

crisis. Really important domestic issues facing us before all of this

happened -- education, energy and the environment, health care --

still have the same dimension and consequence. But we have to

recognize that it's much more difficult to discuss and debate them in

the aftermath of Sept. 11th. Unfortunately, disagreement is sometimes

characterized as unpatriotic during times such as these and open,

thoughtful discourse is somewhat muted. The gravity of the current

situation is not lost on any of us and we all want to do what's right

to insure our national security. It is with this in mind that I felt

compelled to write you today.


A handful of determined U.S. senators, encouraged by the White House,

are arguing that national security requires the Senate to rush a

pro-oil energy bill into law. They have vowed to hold up normal Senate

business and attach the bill to every piece of legislation that comes

to the Senate floor. So far they have failed in what The Boston Globe

is calling "oil opportunism." But with President Bush, himself, now

calling for rushed passage of this disastrous bill, intense pressure

is building on Senate leaders to succumb to the emotions of the

moment. Using our national tragedy as an opportunity to advance the

narrow interests of the oil lobby would not be in the best interest of

the public. This bill, already passed by the House, would not only

open the Arctic Refuge to oil rigs, it would also pave the way for

energy companies to exploit and destroy pristine areas of Greater

Yellowstone and other gems of our natural heritage. As important, it

would do nothing to address energy security.


I'm asking for your immediate help in stopping this legislation. After

reading my letter I hope you'll take action at

http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/index.asp?src=aa0110a and then

forward this letter to your friends and colleagues.


Last spring, the Bush administration and some members of Congress said

we had to pass the president's oil-friendly energy bill because we

were facing the most serious energy crisis since 1973. But here we

are, a mere six months later, and the energy crisis has vanished. Due

to a slowing economy and falling demand, the prices for gasoline,

natural gas and home heating oil have plunged. Meanwhile, the

much-feared "summer of blackouts" in California never happened,

largely because consumers and businesses made dramatic cuts in energy

use by launching the most successful statewide conservation campaign

in history.


With no energy crisis to scare us with, the administration and pro-oil

senators are now promoting their "Drill the Arctic" plan under the

guise of national security and energy independence. Don't buy it. It

would take ten years to bring Arctic oil to market, and when it

arrives it would never equal more than two percent -- a mere drop in

the bucket -- of all the oil we consume each year. Our nation simply

doesn't have enough oil to drill our way to energy independence or

even to affect world oil prices.


We possess a mere 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but we

consume fully 25 percent of the world's oil supply. We could drill the

Arctic Refuge, Greater Yellowstone, and every other wildland in

America and we'd still be importing oil, still be paying worldwide

prices for domestic oil, and still be vulnerable to wild gyrations in

price and supply. As The Atlanta Constitution put it: "Burning through

our tiny oil supply faster will not make our country more secure." I'd

go further: increasing our dependence on oil, whether that oil comes

from the Persian Gulf or the Arctic Refuge, practically guarantees

national *insecurity*. And we know that it will bring more habitat

destruction, more oil spills, more air pollution, and more global

warming. The public health implications will be devastating.


If our nation wants to declare energy independence, then we have no

choice but to reduce our appetite for oil. There's no other way. We

need to rely on smarter and cleaner ways to power our economy. We have

the technology right now to increase fuel economy standards to 40

miles per gallon. If we phased in that standard by 2012 we'd save 15

times more oil than the Arctic Refuge is likely to produce over 50

years. We could also give tax rebates for existing hybrid gas-electric

vehicles that get as much as 60 mpg. We could invest in public

transit. We could launch an "Apollo Project" to bring fuel cells and

hydrogen fuel down to earth, allowing us to begin the mass production

of vehicles that emit only water as a by-product. The list goes on and

on.


In this climate of national trauma and war, it is up to us -- the

people -- to ensure that reason prevails and our natural heritage

survives intact. The preservation of irreplaceable wildlands like the

Arctic Refuge and Greater Yellowstone is a core American value. I have

never been more appreciative of the wisdom of that value than during

these past few weeks. When we are filled with grief and unanswerable

questions it is often nature that we turn to for refuge and comfort.

In the sanctuary of a forest or the vastness of the desert or the

silence of a grassland, we can touch a timeless force larger than

ourselves and our all-too-human problems. This is where the healing

begins. Those who would sell out this natural heritage -- this

spiritual heritage -- would destroy a wellspring of American strength.

What's worse, their rush to exploit the wildness that feeds our souls

won't do a thing to solve our energy problems.


There are plenty of sensible and patriotic ways to guarantee our

nation's energy security, but destroying the Arctic Refuge is not one

of them. Please tell that to your senators. They urgently need to hear

it because the pressure is on to move this pro-oil bill to a vote in

the next few weeks. It will take you only a minute to send them an

electronic message from NRDC's SaveBioGems website.


Go to http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/index.asp?src=aa0110a


And please forward this message to your family and friends. Millions

of Americans need to know about this cynical attempt to promote the

interests of energy companies at the expense of everyone else.


Sincerely yours,


Robert Redford


=====


BioGems: Saving Endangered Wild Places

A project of the Natural Resources Defense Council

http://www.savebiogems.org


If you have any questions about this message, please write to us at

membership@nrdc.org

AFGHAN WOMEN
(You may remember the petitions which were circulated to petition the UN regarding the plight of women under the Taliban. This is one result. There is hope.)

Thursday, 6 December, 2001, 12:33 GMT Afghanistan's new women politicians

Afghan women were repressed under the Taleban

The new transitional government of Afghanistan is especially groundbreaking for the country's women, two of whom have been elected to the de facto cabinet.
Sima Samar, a doctor who runs health centres for Afghan refugees in Pakistan was elected minister for women's affairs - she will also be a vice-chair in the new government lead by Hamid Karzai.
Forty-seven year old Ms Samar, an ethnic Hazara from Ghazni province, will be the first woman to hold such a senior post in Afghanistan.
She has won a number of awards for her work in the filed of social welfare.
In addition to Ms Samar, independent candidate Suhaila Seddiqi, a surgeon and former army general who still lives in Kabul, is to become minister for public health.

It is not a bad beginning, there were none in previous governments

UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi Ms Seddiqi, also known as General Suhaila, she has served in Kabul's military hospital and saved the lives of many wounded in rocket attacks during factional fighting in the 1990s.

Years of repression

Under the Taleban women in Afghanistan suffered severe repression.
They were denied education, could not work unless the position was health related, and were not permitted to leave their homes unless accompanied by a male relative.
The Taleban forced women to wear a traditional veil, or burqa, that covered their entire bodies. Those who were caught only partially uncovered were subject to harsh beatings.
Women used to play a significant role in certain sectors of Afghan society such as education, the civil service, and the medical profession.
But they began to lose their rights first under the mujahideen who took over Kabul in 1992, and then under the Taleban who took control in 1996.

UN pledge

UN special representative for Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi said the two appointments would not represent the full range of women the UN eventually hoped to have in the government.
"We are right to expect more," he said.
"But it is not a bad beginning, there were none in previous governments."
The UN had stressed that any new political authority for Afghanistan must guarantee freedom of expression and women's rights.

(from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1694000/1694257.stm Dec. 6, 2001)

THE FREEDOM TO BE FREE

"The freedom we now need is the inner freedom that
allows us to think more intelligently. The
freedom to draw more deeply on our creativity and
us it in ways that are in our true best interest;
the freedom to follow our vision and find that
which we truly seek.
This is the opportunity that our many physical
freedoms are opening us to: self liberation. The
freeing of our minds so that we may be our true,
authentic selves."

By Peter Russell, "Waking up in Time", pg. 130,
Origin Press, CA, 1992.

I.E.. The right to be who we are.
(See 12 Keys to understanding Habeas Mentem) at
www.HumanCafe.com
or go to:
htt
p://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm

FOR ADDITIONAL WORKS BY PETER RUSSELL, go to:
http://www.pete
russell.com

BBC News: Q&A: UN's Palestinian state resolution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1870000/1870801.stm

"Through the resolution (1397), the UN Security Council resolution affirms "a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognised borders"."

Is this a realistic goal? Can Israel and Palestine coexist side by side? Pres. George Bush called on the creation of a Palestinian State last November. Is there a mood shift in public opinion in the making here?

"The resolution actually talks of a "vision" of a Palestinian state. It does not actually outline new or concrete steps to get there. ... The issues that have floored previous attempts to reach peace - Jerusalem, the right of return for refugees and the hundreds of Israelis settlements - still remain.
Even if there is a ceasefire and a return to talks, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is still fundamentally opposed to the principle of land for peace and to dismantling the settlements."

How should the resettlement of Israelis or Palestinians be handled, by whom? Should East Jerusalem be Palestine's capital? Any thoughts?

Also see the Jerusalem Post RE UN Resolution 1397: http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/13/News/News.45118.html

OPEN LETTER TO PRES. BUSH

http://open_letter.tripod.com/

A Leap of Faith

"...Let us free ourselves. Let us learn to live and work together without the use of money. We have the strength within us. It is the most powerful force on Earth. It is waiting to be unleashed. It is a time for courage and common sense." ...

Al Qaida head bin Laden is buried in a mountain in Afghanistan, some believe, the Americans know where, the body not revealed until the right time, when they are going to attack Hussein, then show bin Laden is dead, to demoralize opposing force. A game of international poker?

Zimbawean Land Reform v/s food crisis.

On-Line News Hour:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/july-dec02/zimbabwe_8-21.html

Is the food crisis in Zimbabwe being aggravated by government policy, which appears to be unethical as to how it is being administered, even if it is to right former colonial wrongs. In other words, are the people of Zimbabwe, white and black, being badly served and are running out of time?

August 21, 2002

Mourn the Victims.


Stand for Peace.


Islam is not the Enemy.


War is NOT the Answer.


Today we are at a point of imbalance in the world and are moving toward what

may be the beginning of a THIRD WORLD WAR. If you are against this

possibility, the UN is being presented signatures in an effort to avoid a

tragic world event.


Please COPY (rather than Forward) this e-mail in a new message, sign at the

end of the list, and send it to all the people whom you know. If you receive

this list with more than 500 names signed, please send a copy of the message

to: unicwash@unicwash.org


Even if you decide not to sign, please consider forwarding the petition on

instead of eliminating it.


1) Suzanne Dathe, Grenoble, France


2) Laurence COMPARAT, Grenoble, France

etc... (use the above as your model for petition)

It was E-mailed to me by a friend Oct.7, 2002.


~An Ode to America~


Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even

if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the

world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations. Some of them

are nearly extinct, others are incompatible with one another, and in

matters of religious beliefs, not even God can count how many there are.


Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a

hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the

army, and the secret services that they are only a bunch of losers.

Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the

streets nearby to gape about. The Americans volunteered to donate blood

and to give a helping hand.


After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the

smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the

national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every

place and on every car a government official or the President was

passing. On every occasion they started singing their traditional song:

"God Bless America!"


Silent as a rock, I watched the charity concert broadcast on Saturday

once, twice, three times, on different TV channels. There was Clint

Eastwood, Willie Nelson, Robert de Niro, Julia Roberts, Cassius Clay,

Jack Nicholson, Bruce Springsteen, Sylvester Stallone, James Wood, and

many others whom no film or producers could ever bring together. The

American's spirit of solidarity turned them into a choir. Actually,

choir is not the word.


What you could hear was the heavy artillery of the American soul.


What neither George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton, nor Colin Powell could

say without facing the risk of stumbling over words and sounds, was

being heard in a great and unmistakable way through this charity

concert.


I don't know how it happened that all this obsessive singing of America

didn't sound croaky, nationalist, or ostentatious! It made you green

with envy because you weren't able to sing for your country without

running the risk of being considered chauvinist, ridiculous, or

suspected of who-knows-what ulterior motive.


I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening

to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in

a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey

player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the

plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or

thousands of people.


How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being?

Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some

turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call,

millions and millions of dollars were put in a collection aimed at

rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.


What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their

galloping history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to

find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of

sounding commonplace.


I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion.


Only freedom can work such miracles!


************************************
The American news agency, Associated Press, reported about the author of

this article, Mr. Nistorescu: This article is from Romania. It was

written by Mr. CornelNistorescu and published under the title "C?area Americii" on September 24 in

the Romanian newspaper http://www.expres.ro/ Evenimentul zilei ("The

Daily Event" or "News of the Day").

"Democracy beats despotism in the animal world":

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=99993248

Why not? Vote with your ballots, your wallets, your feet, noses... It's a good idea!

Dear Manuel, we are writing in reference to a post you entered into the Forum at Humancafe.com, in the Political Awareness thread (see above), dated Jan. 22, 2000.

It seems that now, after nearly three years, the US Navy has finally decided to call it quits on Vieques Island: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/15/vieques.training/index.html

Congratulations on work well done, and thanks for writing about this struggle for ecological issue and freedom from tyranny in the People's Forum.

All best wishes,

Editors

The Boston Globe's "Letter to the Editor" ran this today, titled "Should we blow up nest of vipers?"

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/037/letter/Should_we_blow_up_nest_of_vipers_+.shtml

The idea presented by the writer to isolate and blockade makes more sense than a full force assault on Baghdad. Let the Iraqi Arabs have a chance at a coup detat to change their leadership. This would save face while the world offers humanitarian and leadership aid for the new government to help their people join together in a new democratic state. Let them see their petty dictator as no more than that, and not the world political figure he now imagines himself to be. In isolation within their "palaces", the old regime will become ineffectual under "house arrest."

Bin Laden Tape: Text
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm

Voice of evil, or confused diatribe?

Pathetic, sad, an unreal voice of desperation... pass the duct tape.

"VIEWPOINT: Help us get our country back."

Prof. Kana Makiya, an Iraqi dissident, academic and author, argues that regime change in Iraq could become a force for democracy in the Arab and Muslim world.

Though Humancafe remains neutral in all matters pertaining to the possible US/UK/UN war on Iraq, we thought it important to list what people had written in from around the globe regarding this issue (see VIEWPOINT link above). Here are a couple of FOR and AGAINST entries, in part, from the above list:

FOR: "Yes I can understand how Muslim society as a whole is suspicious of Western attitudes undermining their rigid codes of behaviour. Until Islam allows people to question their religion and open it to discussion beyond a narrow interpretation (where is the Martin Luther of Islam?) the adherents will be locked into a feudal world...and the rest of us will suffer the consequences."
Jan Goffey, US/UK

"Iraq needs a guiding hand to get up from the years of Hussein's rule. It could make the country more open to outside world not just terrorists theories of Islam. Iraqis need to see that there is a world outside Baghdad that is quite beautiful and decent.
This should happen to all of the Arab world. They should become more accepting of other religions and culture, and stop calling non-Muslims infidels."
ken, UK

AGAINST: "You are the biggest traitor. Going against your own country."
Sajid Chawdhary, UK

"I don't understand why these people are justifying killing of countless children and women and the old and the innocents? There are several countries taken over by rulers who deserve nothing but a bullet, but why only Iraq? Can America give us assurance that their bombs can distinguish between the civilians and the Saddam's men?"
khan_gul, pakistan


NEUTRAL: "Prof. Makiya is quite a brave man for expressing such views. Would a post-Saddam government have the courage of Egypt's Sadat or Jordan's King Hussein and make peace with Israel??"
Alfred Fiks, Ph.D., Costa Rica

These listed are representative of only a small sampling from around the world.

Respectfully,

Editors, Humancafe

BBC's Talking Point: 'Bin Laden' tape: Your reaction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2751115.stm

As people write in from around the world, there is only one credible courageous voice standing out from the crowd. Dr. Abu Talib of Iraq:

"As a Muslim I would like to say that this war is not religious war, and not war between Islam and Christianity, neither it is a war for oil. It is a war between civilization and tyrant. The al-Jazeera channel is not only a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda propaganda, but also a mouthpiece for the tyrant Saddam Hussein. Saddam and Bin Laden are 2 sides of the same coin. Both try to involve the whole middle east in their war by spreading false information to the naive people that this war is between religions. al-Jazeera is helping them in supporting terror."
Dr Abu Talib, Iraq

War or no war, let us stop the emotional appeals to fear and let us hear the voice of reason. No video, no credibility. The 'bin Laden' tape is a demented fool's fake.

Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences

by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible
of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the
brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the
horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully
silent.
There is no debate, no discussion, no attemptto lay out for the nation the
pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate,
paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of
events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much
substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this
particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This
is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it
materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and
possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a
revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate
time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any
other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently
threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist
on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of
world-wide
terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon
be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration
figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when
discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing
and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where
globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many
nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our
time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to
damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust,
misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is
fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed
after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist
attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur.
Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of
the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are
being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other
essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim.
The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two
years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has
squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next
decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This
Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire
financial condition,
under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This
Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth.
This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health
care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate
funding for homeland
security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long
and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to
find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again
marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has
split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International
order-keeping
entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called
into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as
well- intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient
art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that
reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders,
and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries
as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types
of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have
massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone.
We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as
the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome
military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating
attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military
manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support
of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters
cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far,
yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its
hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the
peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in
that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces.
This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and
yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than
those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned
that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq.
In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize
Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and
supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we
propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in
devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear
arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by
radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than
Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a
world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our
callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased
the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even
more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and
arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous
consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President
after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the
frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting
enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of
extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world
is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with
the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest
superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this
Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is
possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the
population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which
over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only
days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors
of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent.
On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation
for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart
of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens
are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card.
And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question
thejudgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military
attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral
traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time.
Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put
ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful
way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we
allow more time.

(as forwarded to Celsia)