BEST

There were not too many candidates for the best news of the week this week. The EU is considering dropping sanctions against Cuba, our contractors might lose their immunity to prosecution in  Iraq, and a hearing of the Senate Armed Forces Committee heard testimony regarding the Bush's Administration's role in formulating our country's torture policies--the hope for accountability lies in these hearings.

But the best news of the week is the ceasefire that started between Israel and Hamas. The ceasefire not only includes a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza, it also includes an easing of Israel's blockade of Gaza. This ceasefire agreement was brokered by Egypt. Though ceasefires there have failed before as have summit meetings, peace cannot come without them. In addition, the ceasefire provides a respite for both sides from violence.

WORST

Candidates for the worst news of the week include: western oil companies' negotiations for no-bid oil contracts with Iraq's Oil Minister, Israel's rehearsing air strikes against Iran, the House's approval of a 162 Billion dollar war funding bill, Congress's writing of a bill that gives telecom companies immunity for the possible breaking of laws while conducting surveillance for the Bush Administration, and Wall Street speaking against possible regulation for oil speculators.

But the worst news of the week is the flooding that is taking place around the world. Millions have been forced to flee their homes in India and China and now we see flooding destroying homes and crops in the US. Especially hard hit is the state of Iowa. Our gov't will certainly offer promises of help to its citizens who are affected. But one has to ask how much more help could our gov't provide for flood victims  if there was no War on Iraq that is financed by other countries.

BEST

Candidates for the best news of the week includes, as usual, attempts to make the powerful accountable. These news stories include: 1) Kucinich calling for and promising to pursue the impeachment of President Bush; 2) McClellan saying he will testify in the Plame case; 3) Obama calling for windfall profit tax on Big Oil while a friend of mine suggested that the same tax is applied to those profiting off of corn; and 4) the Supreme Court ruling that Gitmo detainees now have the right to have their imprisonment reviewed in civilian courts.

The best news is the antiwar protests that Italian activists have been participating in Rome this week. Despite facing possible arrests, these activists are providing a shining example to the dying antiwar movement in America. It is time for antiwar activists here to assume nothing about what a Democratic President would do in Iraq and elsewhere. An excellent article about this was written by Anthony Arnove and can be found at: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17862.

WORST

Candidates for the worst news of the week revolve around killing or the possibility of killing. These stories include: 1) according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute report, spending on the military has increased almost 50% in the last decade throughout the world; 2) Israeli threats to attack Gaza; 3) clashes in Somalia that claimed 20 lives; and 4) Bush is threatening Iran by maintaining that all options are "on the table."

But the worst news is the report that US is financially pressuring Iraq into accepting over 50 permanent military bases. The financial pressure involves using tens of billions of dollars in seized Iraqi assets as leverage. Part of the American proposal includes that both American troops and contractors can act with impunity when fighting. This is Iraqi Freedom? While President Bush speaks words of deliverance and freedom, his actions seem to be lagging.


In news that did not make the wire services, I have started a new blog called "Flaming Fundamentalists For Peace." The website is:

http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/

The purpose of this second blog is to write about peace and war from a conservative Christian perspective. The blogroll has been copied over to this new site as well as some rss news feeds have been added. The blogroll at this townhall site cannot be updated because Townhall is experiencing technical problems. So please stand by.

Best

Why is that much of the best news of the week regards holding others accountable? We had the release of Scott McClellan's book which provides another witness to the intentions of the Bush Administration, the Pentagon's announcement that they will investigate their own propaganda program, Chile's effort to arrest those associated with US installed ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet, a Grand Jury hearing Iraqi witnesses tell of their experiences with Blackwater, and ArchBishop Tutu's probe of killing of 19 Palestinians in Gaza in 2006. But accountability was not only good news as American Mathematician, David Mumford, is donating all of his $100,000 prize from the Wolf Foundation Prize in Mathmatics to both Birzeit University in the West Bank and to the the Israeli group Gisha. Gisha works for Palestinian rights.

But the best news is the agreement by over 100 countries to ban the use of cluster bombs. A little bit of bad news here is that those who  not only did not sign on in banning these weapons that keep on killing but even boycotted the talks include the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. But despite that, hopefully this agreement will change both the availability of and the willingness to use this weapon.

Worst

The candidates for the worst news of the week include Iran's withholding of information regarding its nuclear program, the Marine Corps' clearing of the troops involved in killing 19 Afghanistan civilians in an incident in March of 2007, the harsh sentences for immigrant workers who were arrested in Iowa, the Burmese Junta interfering with relief efforts, the evacuation of what could be over 1 million Chinese to avoid possible flooding, the 46% rise of PTST in American troops, the announcement that children are being sexually abused by UN peacekeepers, and the attacks on immigrant workers in South Africa.

But the worst news affects people everywhere. Food prices are expected to remain high for at least 10 years according to the UN. Reasons for the high prices include increases in the price of oil, the weakening of the dollar and the diversion of crops into biofuels.

Best

The candidates for the best news include: an immigration raid protest in Iowa, multiple calls for a probe of the US shelling of the Palestine Hotel in 2003, an American denial of an Israeli report of our intentions to attack Iran, Bush apologizing for the desecration of the Koran, and the Burmese Juntas allowing UN aid flights. Please note the high percentage of good news items that are about holding others accountable for their actions.

But the winner is that Iran has renewed calls for international talks on several issues from its nuclear development to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Perhaps if we participated in these talks, we could help prevent future conflicts and resolve current ones. Iran has made these offers before and we ignored them. The result is the US gov't's perceived need to threaten Iran.

Worst

I really don't want to go through the list of candidates. It is too depressing. Some of the items have to do with US policies in Iraq that have included the possible sniper killing of an Iraqi journalist, the detainment of Iraqi youths, the Iraqi purchase of arms, and the US gov't 's approval of more money for the war. In addition, we have the growing food crisis partly because of US agribusiness practices that drive local farmers from other countries out of business. In addition, 6 million Ethiopian children are at risk for malnutrition.

The worst news is similar to what we saw during the last two weeks. The death toll from China's earthquake was last reported on Democracy Now at 40,000 with over 32,000 unaccounted for as well as hundreds of thousands injured.

The pot calling the kettle black award goes to President Bush for saying that US occupation of Iraq, what we call American domination, is needed to prevent Iranian domination of the Middle East.

May 16th’s event was a remembrance of the 60th anniversary of a historical Middle East development. The speakers served as a picture of America’s melting pot as they represented different ethnicities, religions, and occupations. The commemoration began with prayer. The speakers and the audience showed a deep reverence for “The Land.” Speakers talked about the need for all groups to live in peace.

Considering that Israel is the only “democracy” in the Middle East, one would think that this event was celebrating Israel’s 60th birthday, but that would be wrong. Rather, we were recognizing Al-Nakbah—the Palestinian catastrophe—outside of the UN (Al-Nakbah ). Al-Nakbah refers to the 700,000 Palestinians who left their homes either because of the fear of war or were driven out by Jewish fighters. But it was not just the refugees of 1948 who were remembered; all Palestinians who have suffered under Israel’s occupation were honored.

I had arrived early and by the time the program started, I looked a mess. The poncho I was wearing to protect myself from the rain was falling apart. When they were setting up for the event, I felt out of place just like I initially felt during an immigration rights march I attended a couple of years ago. That happens when most of the people you are with speak another language and are from another culture. But once the program started, I felt more at ease.

First there was a prayer service. Though I disagree with Muslims regarding who Jesus and Mohammed are, I wanted to quietly watch as they were led in prayer because Muslims deserve to be respected as equals. In contrast to the fear mongering rumors I have heard from anti-Muslim bigots, all I could sense from the prayer meeting was a seriousness and reverence that I do not often observe elsewhere.

Then there were the speeches. The first speaker was an Arab Muslim who cited the words of many people from different backgrounds. He appealed to a common sense understanding of fairness. Speakers such as the Green Party’s Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and Phylis Bennis talked about the sins of domination as seen in American imperialism. It is the desire to dominate that is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is destroying both the humanity of the victimizer as well as the lives of the victims.

A Native American talked about his solidarity with dispossessed Palestinians. A Palestinian Christian spoke against Israel’s occupation and served as proof that Muslims are not the only targets of Israel’s occupation. A non-Zionist Jew spoke against Israel’s Zionist policies. One of the speakers talked about her experiences of working with Palestinian refugee children. A poet talked about the occupation and there was a hip-hop performer.

A most telling remark was made while a Palestinian speaker was talking about how anger is a part of being Palestinian. A nearby Green Party supporter commented that that anger would not play well in the general public. And yet, when one considers how the Palestinian people suffer, one would have to have lost all touch with reality to have no anger. For example, consider Gaza today. Gaza has little to no electricity and their sources for food and medicine have been shut down. In addition, the people of Gaza endure military strike after military strike.

Some of the statements made defended the way that Palestinians fight back. A very legitimate question, who is the terrorist? was asked. All too often, terrorism is associated solely with the tactics of one side. One only needs to access the B’Tselem website (B'Tselem ) to see all who are committing terrorism. Despite the support for Palestinian resistance, there were no statements that targeted Jews. In fact, one speaker emphasized solidarity with the victims of the Holocaust. A march through parts of NYC followed the speeches.

In contrast to the stereotypes employed by anti-Muslim bigots and fear mongers, the people who organized, participated in, or attended the event showed every indication of wanting both peace and justice. There was an openness and freedom to this event that many of us, by our own fault, do not associate with Muslims. But I should not have been surprised by that atmosphere because I have had an article printed in a Palestinian website that included criticisms of Arafat’s failure to curb terrorism (article on Sharon ). In addition, when one views websites like the Palestine Chronicle (The Palestine Chronicle ), one will see a variety of groups represented by the authors of the articles listed.

There are criticisms to be made, too. First, I heard no statements that denounced terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Attacks on civilians should be distinguished from attacks on soldiers because Palestinians have a legal right to resist the occupation. Also, the same criticism that Israeli academic Neve Gordon levels against Israel could also be applied to some of the attendees of this commemoration. In a recent article, Gordon criticizes Israelis for their inclination to “idolize the land” and that this contributes to the perpetual violence in the region (see article ).

Certainly the Palestinians merit a qualified support from everyone - qualified because no one should support attacks on civilians. But the support is deserved even if one does not have the same passion for “the land” as Palestinians do because there is a more important issue at hand. That issue is equality. Fairness and humanity demand that we work for everyone’s equality. Equality is the most basic recognition that the Israeli government denies the Palestinians. But for those who are not moved by the plight of others, there is a selfish reason for caring about the Palestinians. Our government will not forever protect our equality at home when it supports inequality abroad.

Best

Most of the nominees for the best news of the week, as reported by the Democracy Now website, focus on holding others accountable. These include the disqualification of a Pentagon General from watching over the tribunals of prisoners held at Guantanamo, the disciplining of a White police officer for his disrespectful treatment of a Black motorist, the ongoing Apartheid suit of US corporations for assisting South Africa during the Apartheid years, the extradition of 14 Columbia paramilitary leaders to the US, an Italian judge ruling that Italy's Prime Minister can be called to testify in the CIA kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric along with the beginning of the trial, and Burger King's firing of its executive who harassed tomato pickers who were seeking a raise of a penny a pound. The other good news includes California's Supreme Court overruling the state's gay marriage ban.

But the best news of the week came from the US House of Representatives who passed a measure calling for the "immediate" pull-out of US troops. Though the vote margin is not veto proof, it is the most significant step our government has taken to address our illegal war and occupation. We should also note that the House had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this vote by the American people.

Worst

A few of the nominees for the worst news for this past week include China's earthquake that has kills tens of thousands of people, the 60th anniversary of Nakbah (the Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948) which Bush neglected to mention during his Mideast trip, and Bush's irrational labeling of Obama's insistence on talking to enemies as appeasement.

But the worst news of the week is the increased number of  casualties in Burma thanks to the deliberate interfering with foreign help. Burma's junta have been accused of confiscating relief aid. The Red Cross has estimated the total number of deaths to be over 120,000. In addition, Burma could see more storms in the near future.

I remember how I felt when I was in my 20’s and watched Olympic gymnasts competing on TV; I felt like I had wasted my life. Here were kids who were half my age performing on a level I could never even dream of achieving. I often asked myself: “What have I done with my life?” I experienced some of those same feelings when reading parts of the recently published book: “Let Me Stand Alone: The Journals of Rachel Corrie.” The first entry that made me question my own contributions was Rachel’s insight into why some people do not care about others. When she was around 12 years old she said how she would be if she did not care about others. She wrote: “I’d be unstoppable, untouchable. What a blast! Or would it be?”

For those who don’t know Rachel Corrie's story, she was an activist who died in the line of duty in Rafah, Palestine at the age of 23. She was attempting to stop a house demolition of Palestinian friends by standing in the way of an American made, Israeli bulldozer. Her friends were still inside the house when the bulldozer was approaching. Witnesses say that she was in view of the bulldozer driver and there was a site commander in an armored personnel carrier. While Rachel was merely doing what other activists, both Israeli and non-Israeli, have done, the bulldozer ran over Rachel. Rachel and her fellow activists show that one does not have to use a weapon while wearing a uniform to show valor. The following video link shows graphic examples of activists’ encounters with Israeli forces including a segment on Rachel (activists).

Another example of Rachel’s early insight occurs in a journal entry a couple pages later when she describes our reaction to the homeless as being “brutally well behaved” when we politely ignore their calls for help. She describes the poor as “our sisters and brothers” and she added that that relationship scares us because “we could as easily be them.”

So you see, reading parts of Rachel’s journal made me question how meaningful my earlier life had been. But it is never too late to learn and what I learned from reading Rachel’s journals was to quit staring at the mirror and to look outside the window to see what is both near and beyond the horizon. It’s not that Rachel did not do her fair share of mirror gazing, but she grew out of that. What did she see outside of her window?

She saw her family and her pet cat. She had an older sister Sarah and older brother Chris. She wrote about both. She saw her parents and loved them. She saw her grandparents and wrote about them while they were dying.

She saw ordinary life. She had a best friend in Brigid and a boyfriend named Colin. She had many of the same concerns that her peers had. In one journal entry she wrote for a soldier while in the 6th grade, she wrote that she worried about “grades and makeup.” She eventually saw the good in not getting A’s and celebrated her escape from high school and her life at The Evergreen State College. She struggled with smoking.

She also saw the the mentally ill and the homeless. In fact, she worked with the mentally ill and resented the way we categorize them. She had compassion for homeless and she saw a relationship between their suffering and wisdom. It reminded me of the compassion that the character Sophie Scholl showed in the movie “Sophie Scholl: The Final Days.” In that movie, Scholl, while being interrogated for distributing anti-Hitler leaflets, talked about the possible wisdom that those with mental problems might have learned from their suffering.

Rachel saw activism and she saw it early. When she was around 11 years old, she wrote one entry where she said that she wanted to be a “humanitarian activist.” She thought about working for the Peace Corps. She was in the Olympia Movement For Peace And Justice and she had much admiration for ANSWER because of the scope of the issues that they address. In addition, she made astute criticisms of today’s activism on how it lacked “new tactics,” “interorganizational communication,” alternative solutions, and the ability to incorporate peace into justice issues.

She added incisive comments about broadcast news. She saw how the news tells us that we are either “do nothing” dissenters or of people who accept the “current situation.”

She saw many other things but she became known for her vision of what was beyond the horizon. Her glimpse of Palestine led her to travel there to help those in need. One of her achievements in Palestine was to become a myth buster. Her testimony of the kindness and understanding she received from so many Palestinians destroys the myth that Palestinians are nothing but terrorists who hate our freedoms. In fact, Rachel wrote about feeling guilty for being “doted on” by people who suffered so much because of the policies of her government. She also lists the peaceful means of resistance in which the majority of the Palestinians participated.

The other myth Rachel busted was the myth that Israel only acts defensively. She wrote about how all Palestinians, even the women and children, are subject to curfews and sniper fire, such as the Palestinian girl who was shot while attending school. They are all at risk of having their homes shot up or demolished and their land confiscated. They could always be fired on by tanks and their sources of drinking water and livelihood could be destroyed. These are just some of the daily realities of life in the Gaza Strip.

One could describe Rachel Corrie as being a disturbed person but she was not disturbed in a negative sense. Rather, her disturbed state is a prerequisite for world peace because what troubled her was the suffering of others—this is despite the fact that she wanted to live a normal life. So even though she was not a religious person, her willingness to be bothered by those who lived lives of misery led her to imitate Christ as Isaiah described him in Isaiah 53:3-4:

“A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief…Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows he carried;”

This part of imitating Christ Rachel did without being told.

The Best News
Most of the candidates for the best news for this week deal with holding others accountable. These stories range from the demand from lawmakers to investigate the Pentagon's propaganda program of "embedding" retired military officers as expert analysts in American news broadcasts, to criticism of a NYT's story that reported that Hezbollah is training Iraqi insurgents in Iran because the story was based solely on "unnamed sources", to a San Diego probe of a Blackwater Permit for a training facility in that area. But the best news of the week is something that lies outside of the norm. A bipartisan measure has been passed by the House that would help people suffering from the current home mortgage crisis to obtain "government-backed mortgages". At last there is a government attempt to help people rather than corporations.

Now if we were reporting the best news of the week for last week, that best news was the courageous one day strike conducted by the ILWU that closed over 20 ports on the West Coast in a one day protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They conducted their strike despite the advice of their union leaders and the finding of an arbitrator.

The Worst News
The two leading candidates for the worst news of this week was Israel's closing off the Gaza Strip to all UN aid by cutting fuel supplies for the trucks. There are over 1,000,000 people living in the Gaza Strip who are now living without medical and food supplies. Israel's cutting off of the Gaza Strip is a response to Palestinian rocket attacks that have killed some Israelis with the number killed ranging between the teens to the twenties. What is not mentioned is the hundreds of Palestinians who are killed by Israeli armed forces. The Israeli action, besides breaking international law, threatens to kill a horrific number of Palestinians. But so far, the full potential of Israel's action has yet to be realized. Certainly both sides are at fault here but disproportionate responses can only maintain the cycle of violence and suffering.

The worst news comes from Burma where the death toll from the cyclone could realistically reach 100,000 people. And if that is not bad enough, the Burmese government is playing games with those who strongly desire to help the victims.

Most of the information reported here comes from http://www.democracynow.org/

Obama's reaction to Rev Wright was bad enough. The first part of his most recent statement indicated that the truth of Rev Wright's statements is determined by effect, not by facts. Obama's first concern is whether Rev. Wright's words are "divisive." It is the "liberal media's" reaction that is most telling. One of the most "liberal" commentators on the air today summarily dismissed Rev Wright's views by calling him "cartoonish." But when Keith Olberman did this, he was careful to avoid the details. He didn't deal with America's history in how America has treated others such as Indians, Blacks, Japanese, Panamanians, Iraqis, Sudanese, and Palestinians. He didn't remember that when Rev Wright said "America's chickens are coming home to roost," he was quoting Ambassador Peck. And he forgot to mention Rev. Wright's concern that 9-11 would move America to want "revenge" on those who were innocent.

But Olberman is not alone, I heard no mainstream media commentator say a word about Rev. Wright's quoting Ambassador Peck in asserting that "violence begets violence" and "terrorism begets terrorism." Do the mainstream media commentators think that those statements are wrong?

If the "liberal media" will not ask us to examine the morality of the foreign policies of our country, who will? People on the left and Rev. Wright will; but for most Americans, they are sleeping snuggly in their beds while assumptions of innocence dance in their heads. Unfortunately, Obama is not only playing a lullaby for America, he is showing his loyalty. Not that loyalty demands that he agree with Rev. Wright; but loyalty would enable him to itemize what he thought were valid points or concerns expressed by Rev. Wright. As for our "liberal media," their response to Rev. Wright has simply taken the suspense out of our upcoming national elections.

Calling all Mathematicians! The following problem is the most important Math problem to solve today. The train of the lessons learned from history is leaving from the East traveling West at so many miles per hour. On the same track, the train of an ever advancing and adulterous technology is leaving from the West traveling East at so many miles per hour. When will these two trains meet? The answer to this question tells us how long we have left on this earth.

From the East starts the train of the lessons learned from History. What are those lessons? Actually, there is only one lesson and that is, as others have said, we have not learned from history. What haven't we learned? Despite the horrors of war, we have not learned how to live without it.

From the West starts the train of technology. This train contains the know-how to make every tool that betters our lives. But this train also carries the WMDs that threaten our existence. It is obvious that technology is advancing because our toys, both tools and weapons, are more powerful. And though we often find comfort in our technological edge over our adversaries, we shouldn't. Why? We should be uncomfortable because our technology today can be someone else's technology tomorrow. That is the adulterous nature of technology.

The only chance we have of avoiding this cataclysmic train collision is to derail one of these trains. Which train should we derail? It cannot be the train of technology. The train of technology is transporting necessary cargo for our survival as well as destructive cargo. Also, past attempts to derail the WMD part of this train have proven to be counterproductive. For example, according to Richard Wilson, a former Chair of the Department of Physics at Harvard, Israel's 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak seemed to start Saddam's nuclear weapons program rather than halt it (http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/OSIRAK(2)). Our invasion of Iraq is another example where an attempt to selectively derail the train of technology, it was claimed that Iraq was developing WDMs, was counterproductive because terrorism increased afterwards (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html).

So our only hope for survival is to derail the train carrying the lessons learned from history. To do this, we will have to learn History's most important lesson that war does not work. We will have to do so quickly because these two trains could collide at any moment. So, what we really need is a revolution if we are to survive.

What must we change? We must eliminate those factors that start conflicts. The first thing we need to change is our addiction to groupism. Groupism is where we are more loyal to a group than to moral values. We can tell that our country is controlled by groupism when our government supports the same aggressive actions performed by our allies that it condemns when done by our adversaries. A variation of this form of groupism can be seen when Israelis are apathetic to the plight of the Palestinians and yet call for the death of Arabs after innocent Israelis are murdered. Palestinians return the favor when they vow vengeance after their own are killed while they rejoice when Israelis are killed.

Another sign that we are carrying out groupism is when our loyalty to a group limits our choices. Examples of this expression of groupism could be constantly seen in the Cold War when our nation would back all sorts of repressive regimes that were not communistic rather than find an alternative approach. Now groupism also applies to individuals. In 2004, I encountered numerous Kerry voters who agreed more with Nader than Kerry. So why didn't they vote for Nader? It was because they were Democrats. Sure they said that Nader didn't have a chance to win but Nader didn't have a chance to win because too few Democrats were going to break ranks to vote for someone else. This type of groupism shows a preference for power and control over values.

Defeating groupism will be difficult. Groups give us a sense security and significance. Not only that, many of us were raised on groupism. Groupism started for us with rooting for hometown and school sports teams and then it affects how we register to vote. A possible result of this is that we expect our government to rely on groupism too. But unless we are willing to limit our affection and allegiance to any group, our groupism will distract us from promoting equality and will push us into presuming we are superior. If we think we are superior, we will feel entitled and will try to dominate. The result of groupism is that its victims resist control and feel enraged when favoritism trumps fairness and justice.

We must also undo our addiction to materialism. At the worst, our materialism habit causes us to hoard resources and wealth. The more we accumulate for ourselves, the less there is for others. The less there is for others, the more we, or our mercenaries, must dominate so we can keep what we have because the result of our hoarding oppresses the have-nots.

At the least, our materialism becomes an escape from a disturbing world. That is our possessions provide a comfortable cocoon in which to live. When we live in that cocoon, we are shielded from the suffering of have-nots. At this point, a law of physics takes over. That law states that an object that lives in comfort, stays in comfort. People who do not live in comfort, however, are not bound by that law.

If we are to overcome this materialism, then we must prefer to accumulate connections with others to amassing riches. And the most meaningful connections we can accumulate are those that include people in need. In other words, we, as individuals and as a nation, need to put a higher priority on sharing than getting or controlling. If we do more than superficially share, we just might be pleasantly surprised by the results.

Finally, we must forsake the all or nothing thinking that says that one is either for us or against us. Though Bush made this approach popular, the origin of this all or nothing thinking goes back to the start of the Cold War. This all or nothing thinking trapped us into deciding to attack leftist regimes rather than work with them. Overthrowing Iran's Parliamentary government in 1953 because it was seen as moving towards Communism when it planned to nationalize oil resources caused a tragic chain reaction of events and failed decisions that we still are suffering through today. Instead of seeing nations or people as being polar opposites, we need to see that all of us are on different locations on the same continuum. The implication here is that we can better avoid or resolve conflicts when we recognize common concerns and values we have with adversaries.

Though we need a revolution today to prevent the two trains from colliding, we do not need a violent revolution that overthrows the government; violence is what we want to eliminate because it will be self-destructive. Rather, we need a revolution that calls on us to change as much as it demands that our government change. And though people will call this kind of revolution naive; if this revolution fails and the two trains meet, then life on earth as we know it will be called utopian.

March 19th, the fifth anniversary of the war, started early for me, 4:00 to be precise. That is the time I needed to wake up so my friend and I could get to D.C. at a reasonable time. Though the trip started in darkness and rain, we made good time and got to the city without a skyline just in time to participate in what would be a smorgasbord of antiwar activities.

Our first event was IVAW’s, Iraq Veterans Against The War, march. This march proceeded to a small area of grass where we stopped and waited for a sound system so we could listen to Buffie St. Marie sing “Universal Soldier.” We then marched to the National Archives where some of the IVAW’s members engaged in civil disobedience-lite—four members from IVAW found their way to a ledge of the Archives building where they were forbidden to stand. The situation was resolved without any arrests.

My friend and I then split up for a while. He wanted to print some flyers while I was in search of food. Afterwards I found myself across the street from the White House in Lafayette Park where the march of the dead took place. The participants marched solemnly dressed in black, wearing white masks, and holding a small sign with the name of the person who had been killed in this war. Their message was clear.

Of course, the fun for me was about to start. I went to the Burger King on 16th and K Street and ate a second time. While eating, I saw members of SDS, Students For A Democratic Society, marching through and stopping to block an intersection. I called my friend so he could join the scene. In contrast to the Iraq Veterans, these kids were fun to watch. While it was raining, they formed a human chain expecting to be arrested. Meanwhile, they chanted, played music, and danced. When it became apparent that the police would let them be, some of kids talked with the police officers and tried to get them to dance. The kids were the better dancers.

Finally it was time to move on so we walked, with a full police escort, until we found ourselves outside a military recruitment center. Here we chanted and yelled and held up our signs as a couple of counter demonstrators stood across from us holding their signs high. The most memorable chant went something like this: “What are they recruiting for? Murder, rape, torture, war!” At first, this chant seems rude. But when we compile five years of news accounts, soldiers’ testimonies from both the movie “Ground Truth” and the Winter Soldier’s event, and the eye- witness accounts of Iraqi citizens such as those recorded in the website Alive In Baghdad (http://www.aliveinbaghdad.org/), the chant was not just true, it was required.

Afterwards, we continued until we stopped at the intersection of 15th and K streets. We stood and chanted for around 5 minutes when suddenly we felt pushed from behind. The police were shoving us and then told us to get out of the street. The pushing was not violent but it was forceful enough that I was afraid I would fall. The police were using those in back to push the people in front. So I found my way to the side of the protest where an officer merely took hold of my arm as well as that of a fellow protester and guided us off the street. I forgot to thank him for his consideration

Some tempers flared on the part of the students. Their reactions were understandable because these students had expected to block this intersection as they did when the policed accommodated their earlier escapades. The police action was also understandable because it was getting close to rush hour and the last thing they wanted was for this intersection to be blocked.

In short, if you want to have a fun time protesting, hang around SDS. But despite this recommendation, I do have a suggestion for them. SDS members should read Martin Luther King before interacting with the others. Why?

First, perhaps I have a personal problem with people who give the police too hard a time which some SDS members did. I see police officers as people who do a job that I could never do. In addition, police officers are caught in the middle between pleasing their supervisors and avoiding being harassed by the protesters. Also, we should be careful not to displace our anger with our government’s policies onto the police. Finally, if we were to share Martin Luther King’s passion, we would look at all who disagree as people to win over. Trying to win people over does not cause us to compromise our standards; rather, attempting to respectfully persuade others is a way of recognizing them as equals.

Certainly critics could legitimately label some in SDS as being spoiled kids. These critics would continue by saying that these kids do not appreciate the sacrifices made by our troops to guarantee their right of free speech. On the other hand, these spoiled ill-tempered kids are protesting for our troops' right to return home. Critics of SDS might try to shame these kids by comparing them with their favorite set of quiet, compliant, hardworking successful kids. But in today’s world, I prefer to associate with noisy dissidents than with any set of conservative do-gooders because there is too much suffering to remain silent.

When you read the title, you have to consider the source. After all, I am a pro-life, Christian Fundamentalist, Republican registered voter. At the same time, realize that a similar article imploring antiwar activists to not vote Republican is unnecessary.

Current opposition to the Iraq war is either business oriented or ethically based. For example, John McCain once found fault with the war because he objected to the effectiveness of Bush’s policies. But once General Patreaus’ counterinsurgency strategy took effect, McCain’s concerns dissipated and he is now willing to stay in Iraq for one hundred years.

The Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Obama and Clinton, also have business oriented objections to the war. One concern is that because this war is interfering with our efforts to eliminate Bin Laden, it is ineffective. In addition, Obama feels that because Bush's prosecution of the war diverts resources from America to Iraq, it is not an efficient use of our resources. Thus, according to these candidates, the war is wrong because we are not getting the results we want.

Opposing the Iraq War for business reasons, however valid, does not imply one is antiwar; such opposition simply means one opposes President Bush’s Iraq policy. So for the next conflict, who knows how Senator Obama or Clinton would react as President? In fact, it is possible that both of these candidates might be just as war mongering as Senator McCain promises to be.

Antiwar activists are not as interested in the war’s business problems as they are in the war’s moral standing. Antiwar activists believe that this war is immoral because it violates principles. Such principles include that we do not wage war because violence begets violence. Such principles include that either we abolish war or we will make ourselves extinct--this was the sentiment of Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling and others. Ben Ferencz, a former Nuremburg prosecutor, proposed the principle that the rule of law, which is what we do not have when the US claims to be privileged above all others, must replace war. He cites Generals Dwight David Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur as expressing similar sentiments. And speaking of Nuremburg, principles gleaned from those trials condemned and called wars of aggression preventive wars or wars of anticipatory self defense. This applies to Iraq because, as Noam Chomsky notes, our War on Iraq is a preventive war rather than a preemptive war. A preemptive war would be a response to an imminent or commenced attack while a preventive war is a reaction to the expectation of a future assault.

Thus, antiwar activists should not be satisfied with the current condemnations of the Iraq War made by Senators Obama and Clinton; this is because these candidates are only saying that the Iraq War is bad for business. Rather, antiwar activists should demand that these candidates condemn the Iraq War as immoral and promise to work to eliminate all future wars. A sign that Obama and Clinton are serious about eradicating future wars would be if they promised to adhere to international law, which recognizes a country’s right to defend itself against an imminent or actual attack, and thus denounce any assumed right to act aggressively. Antiwar activists should not be happy with anything less.

Presently, it is inconsistent for antiwar activists to vote Democratic. This conclusion is discomforting to those antiwar activists who are Democrats for two reasons. First, some antiwar activists idealize their party. This is normal for we all would like to see the best in whatever group we belong to. Second, some antiwar activists are afraid to vote for third party and independent candidates because such votes seem to help elect pro-war Republican candidates. These activists blame Nader’s 2000 candidacy for our current state of affairs. But suppose these same activists had supported rather than resented Nader in 2004, would it not be more likely that the Democratic Party would be motivated to produce viable antiwar candidates in 2008?

The downward spiral into which the Bush Administration has plunged our country only ensures that, for the foreseeable future, we will feel compelled to vote for the defeat of the Republicans. But do we come closer to ending war by voting Democratic? The answer will be not until the Democratic candidates oppose all preventive wars, such as the Iraq War, on moral grounds and promise to eliminate future wars. Until then, antiwar activists should vote for third party or independent candidates.

We are fast approaching a tragic milestone: the number of American soldiers who have died in the War on Iraq will soon reach 4,000. How should we observe this milestone? Before answering this question, it would be beneficial to look back at why so many Americans had to die. They died because we started this war. We started this war because some of our leaders share similarities with those who attacked us on 9-11. Just as we were attacked by radical Jihadists who have hijacked their religion, we were led into attacking Iraq by those who have hijacked our patriotism.

Those who have hijacked our patriotism tell us that because we are a “shining city on the hill,” we are entitled to do what we want and can forbid others from doing the same. Thus, according to their logic, we are allowed to break the same international laws that we hold others accountable to. An all too frequent result of this mentality has been that our nation helps other countries in order to control them, or uses aggression to dominate. In addition, our hijackers tell us that their policies are above reproach regardless of the suffering that results--this war has both killed up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced over 4 million.

This sense of entitlement is based on delusions of superiority which Bobby Seale, the co-founder of The Black Panthers, said makes nationalism similar to racism. How can one argue with his logic when both a hijacked nationalism and racism claim privileges that cause outsiders to endure extreme hardship and even death? Should asserting superiority be a part of our patriotism?

Some who have hijacked our patriotism will deny they are promoting American superiority. They claim that we are the good guys who went to rescue a troubled part of the world by preaching democracy. But then how do they explain actions that sabotage democracy? For example, how do they explain their attempts to force Iraq into giving control of their undeveloped oil reserves to foreign corporations—particularly American and British companies--despite the objections from the majority of Iraq’s people and their Parliament? How do these hijackers explain the voices of President Bush’s past aides who maintain that we invaded Iraq because of oil? In fact, according to Paul O’Neill, President Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, the intention to invade Iraq existed before 9-11.

Another action that sabotages democracy in Iraq is maintaining the presence of American troops. Since 2005, poll after poll has shown that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis oppose our presence. Included in these polls is an Iraqi belief that runs counterintuitive to the logic employed by the hijackers of American patriotism: the majority of Iraqis believe that our occupation is a detriment to their security and peace.

How should we recognize the deaths of 4,000 American troops?  There are some who sincerely believe that the only way to acknowledge the sacrifices made is to succeed. They proclaim that the surge has provided a light at the end of the tunnel that would enable us to persevere. But how successful has the surge been?

Since the surge took full effect, as the last NIE on Iraq has acknowledged, there has been a reduction in violence. Yet, the same NIE correctly predicted that the level of violence would continue to be significant.  In addition, there are statistics that question the effectiveness of the surge. Statistics from the Iraq Coalition Casualties Count website (http://icasualties.org) show a pattern of decline in Iraqi deaths during the last few months of each year starting in 2005, not just during the autumn of the surge. In addition, this website shows an increase in the number of Iraqi deaths during the last 2 months. But despite the statistics, this continuing until we succeed is based on an “ends justifies the means” principle.

Antiwar activists believe that the only way to recognize the upcoming milestone and sacrifices made is by ending the war now. Prosecuting this war is morally bankrupt because it is based on a hijacked patriotism that asserts one group’s superiority.  Francis Schaeffer, a Christian Fundamentalist and social commentator, preached that those who abandon moral absolutes seek their own “personal peace and prosperity.” If Schaeffer is right, then our troops’ honorable sacrifices have been exploited by the opportunism of our leaders.