It seems Cleveland boy blunder, Dennis Kookcinich is pushing his Department of Peace again.
I found this this morning as I was reviewing the Plain Dealer web logs -
With his party now in power, will Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s dream of creating a Cabinet-level Department of Peace and Non-violence stand a better chance of becoming reality?
Probably not in the near future, but Kucinich remains committed to the cause.
In fact, he’ll promote it during a three-day event in February called “U.S. Department of Peace Conference”.
The conference, held in Arlington, VA, is sponsored by the Peace Alliance, a group launched by Kucinich’s friend, self-help author Marianne Williamson. New Age gurus Deepak Chopra and Michael Beckwith will join Williamson and Kucinich at the conference.
The Peace Alliance promotes Kucinich’s peace legislation, which was introduced in 2001 and proposes giving special attention to conflict of every sort, from regional wars to school violence.
The legislation currently has 75 co-sponsors in Congress, hardly enough to move it out of a committee. But it has served as Kucinich's calling card, his oft-repeated call for viewing the world "in a way that is interconnected."
Kucinich spokesman Doug Gordon says support for the legislation "is growing every Congress.”
It may not be as bold a move as introducing peace legislation, but Kucinich is moving his Parma office out of the Schaaf Community Center after ten years. His new location: Parmatown Mall, where he’ll undoubtedly see more foot traffic.
He plans to make the transition in January. No word yet on whether the congressman will offer a Victoria's Secret coupon to every constituent who stops by.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
what is your fundamental disagreement with a department of peace?
ReplyDeleteAnon, would be nice if you had a name.
ReplyDeleteI am fundamentally for "Peace".
Unfortunately, sometimes it can only be achieved by eliminating your enemy. Dennis does not understand this concept.
My disagreement with a Department of Peace is...
The first thing would be that it is sponsored by Dennis Kucinich. As it will reflect his views and versions of how we should obtain peace.
I give him credit for having a big heart and being sincere in his thoughts, but his version of how we obtain peace is misguided.
The next reason would be, that I feel the department would be used in more of a partisan way than anything.
That may not be the original intent, but in light of what the anti-war movement is doing now, i could see it being used in that context.
Furthermore, we have enough departments in our government, we don't need more red tape.
King
so why don't we just rename the department of defense (once renamed from department of war) to the department of peace and keep it fundamentally as is with more focus on obtaining peace and less on war?
ReplyDeletei understand your disdain for dennis. i would ask if you think the current version of how we obtain peace is working? if not, why would we not try a different route?
ps - i wish to remain anonymous and am commenting in order to provoke more detail in your views as it relates to this issue. thanks.
Want to remain anonymous to provoke more details on how I feel? Thats creepy!
ReplyDeleteSo am I a conservative test case? Well, I do not believe in shrinks. Think they are more screwed up than the people they treat.
To respond -
I guess it goes on interpretation than.
You feel the Dept. of Defense is focused more on war. I feel it is focused on defending our country and national security issues.
I do believe our country seeks peace at all costs. The hard thing for people to accept is that diplomacy does not always work.
Yes, I feel that with the "surge", are efforts to obtain stability in Iraq are heading in the right direction.
True "peace" is something that will never be achieved and is to extreme to expect froom this region.
But it is unfair to discuss peace under the narrow scope of only the Iraq War.
It is impossible to even discuss "stability' in the region without the main players - Syria, Iran, Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palastinians, let alone peace.
So if today we start to stand down and pull our troops out & bring them home, then what?
Speaking only to US intrests - What would the effect be?
In my not so humble opinion the goals of peace and protecting our national intrests are like night and day.
Note: I do not hate Kucinich. I have recently been told he is s good guy and means well. He is just misguided.
In a way, although I don't agree on his views, I respect the man for being true to himself.
I could just NEVER vote for him.
King
if you don't want anonymous posts, don't allow them. blogger will let you do that.
ReplyDeletei never limited the discussion to Iraq. In fact, never even mentioned it.
it sounds as though you've given up on the idea of peace, which then makes perfect sense why a department would be seen as unnecessary to you.
thanks.
I welcome your posts, and I have intentionally left it open to all posters. I strongly agree with our freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteBut saying I gave up on peace is putting words in my mouth.
Think my last post explained that pretty clear.
I did ask you a question that you did not answer. I asked to "provoke" thought on your part and would love to hear your views.
To date, Kucinich, is the only Presidential candidate who has offered a plan to achieve peace and stop the war.
I disagree with Kucinich's plan.
The others and a lot of people in this country want us to pull out, but they never say how, or what their plan of action is.
To say pull back, then pull out is not a plan.
Please also identify any impact to national security and what the overall cost and impact will be of pulling out.
If somebody could come up with a better plan to effectively end the war I would be more than happy to listen and promote if it was good.
As for peace in the area, that is quite different.
There are approx. 1 million plus extremist muslims worldwide.
The main obstacles to peace are Isreal/PLO, Syria/Lebanon, Iran & extremist muslims.
Even though being seperate, the success of each depends on the other.
Most of the middle east countries are starting to come around to stand strong against Iran. A dominant Iran, under this leadership, is something nobody in that region wants.
The moderate or "normal" muslims need to start standing up and denouncing terrorism, Arab countries need to stand together against terrorism.
I would love peace, but how do you achieve it with people that have no value for life.
King