Dunkirk-Fredonia Center for Peace and Justice - Daniel O'Rourke's columns

"Peace and War - and Peace Poles," column by Dan O'Rourke

admin — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:07:58 -0400

CPJ member Dan O'Rourke writes a regular column for the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "Peace and War - and Peace Poles," was published on October 9. 2008

A few weeks ago I participated in a peace walk and rededication of the peace pole on campus of the local university. A peace pole is a handcrafted monument carrying the multi-language message and prayer: “May Peace Prevail on Earth.” There are more than 200,000 Peace Poles on every continent in different countries around the world. They link the human family with one another and are reminders to work and pray for peace.

Peace poles can be found in town squares, parks or places of worship. There is, however, no more fitting place to erect one, than at a university which fosters studies bridging the human family. The university teaches foreign languages, history, philosophy, political science and psychology. Wherever the location, however, the pole makes it a holy place dedicated to peace.

Peace poles have been planted at the Pyramids in Egypt, at the Magnetic North Pole in Canada, in places of conflict like Sarajevo and the Allenby Bridge between Israel and Jordan. President Jimmy Carter and Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa have dedicated them, but so have many ordinary people interested in world peace.

Let’s think about the peace to which the poles point -- and conversely to the wars they seek to prevent. I write here about war not wars. I want us to reflect about peace and war itself and what down through history some insightful men and women have believed.

Let’s start with Jesus. When he said to Peter, “Put your sword back into his place: for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52), he was also speaking to the nations. George Bernard Shaw agreed. He warned that, “Nations are like bees; they cannot kill except at the cost of their own lives.”

Moreover, the wonderfully versatile author Wendell Berry, has observed, “Wars never end, really. “The Crusades aren’t quiet over yet. Our Civil War certainly isn’t over.” Berry is right, of course, wars continue long after the surrender documents are signed and the ceasefire enforced. The two wars he cites are powerful examples for in subtle ways they still continue.

Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, the first woman elected to the US Congress wrote, “"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake." Many will disagree, but a careful reading of pre and post war histories will tell us that she was on to something perceptive and astute. As was Thomas Mann, the German novelist and Nobel Prize recipient when he wrote, "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace." Or listen to Mahatma Gandhi, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

Consider too the words of President John Kennedy who with realistic insight told us, “War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” Kennedy said that almost fifty years ago but that day sadly is still distant. Kennedy’s wry insight echoes the words of the war historian Paul Fussel, who has written vigorously against the popular romanticizing of war. Dr. Fussel believed, “If we do not redefine manhood, war is inevitable.”

This is not to denigrate the contribution of our military men and women, but as the Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick said in the exclusive language of his day, “The tragedy of war is that it uses man’s best to do man’s worst.” Listen too to Rev. Martin Luther King. "Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows." Hasn’t history given us many depressing examples of that?

Lao Tzu, a philosopher of ancient China probably wrote this in the 4^th Century BCE, but like all great truths its wisdom is eternal.

“If there is to be peace in the world, there must be peace in the nations.

If there is to be peace in the nations, there must be peace in the cities.

If there is to be peace in the cities, there must be peace between neighbors.

If there is to be peace between neighbors, there must be peace in the home.

If there is to be peace in the home, there must be peace in the heart.”

If you don’t cotton to the insights of clergy or politicians, then listen to the words of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. His insights are as true today as when he uttered them – and if our world can survive, they will still be true in ten thousand years. “I know war as few other men know it, and nothing to me is more revolting, because I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friends and foe has rendered it useless as a means to settle international disputes.”

Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel, would agree. “A man who does not hate war is not fully human.”

Finally President – and General – Dwight Eisenhower, “I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”

That’s the wisdom of the ages on war and peace, from Lao Tzu to Eisenhower, from Gandhi and Fosdick to Martin Luther King and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. But what do these insights from spiritual masters, clergy, politicians and Generals say to you and me? They call us back to the message on the peace pole: “May peace prevail on earth.”

It is that for which we should be praying and working.

Daniel O'Rourke is a married Catholic priest. Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer in Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. He has published "The Spirit at Your Back," a book of previous columns. You may purchased it or send comments to orourke@netsync.net.

"It's More than the 4,000 Dead," column by Daniel O'Rourke

admin — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:53:26 -0400

CPJ member Daniel O'Rourke contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "It's More than the 4,000 Dead," was published on March 13, 2008.

A recent meeting of a local peace group included an interesting discussion about sponsoring a demonstration against the Iraq War when the number of American military dead reached 4000. (As I write this column, the number is 3987; twelve more were killed just this week.)

Not everyone was in favor of such a demonstration, which would both honor the fallen and protest the war. Some argued that spot-lighting the 4000 dead would distract us from the horrific number of our wounded.

Better body armor, improved technology and speedier medical treatment mean that many soldiers survive wounds in Iraq that in past wars would have been fatal. Last year the Department of Defense using an especially narrow definition reported that 28,000 troops were wounded in Iraq. More realistically the number now is closer to 36,000.

According to government statistics, in the American Civil War there were 1.7 wounded for every soldier killed, in the Second World War 2.3 wounded for every death, in Vietnam 3.2 for every fatality. Now In Iraq the wounded-to-killed ratio is about 9 to 1. Fortunately more of our wounded are surviving, but this has brought with it many unforeseen problems.

These wounds are often horribly serious. Some are devastating. They include multiple amputations, facial disfiguration, brain damage and burns. The White House and Veteran Administration did not anticipate the severity of the wounds or the increase in the number of wounded, as the nation clearly saw last year in the shameful treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The VA has shown itself ill equipped to provide these veterans the medical care they deserve.

Others at the peace meeting remarked that we should also remember that the war’s mental scars are just as debilitating as its physical wounds. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has shown itself in an increase in veterans’ depression, suicides, domestic violence and divorces. Treating PTSD gets very complicated as the military tends to minimize it and veterans have been trained to view its symptoms as signs of weakness.

Still others argued that focusing exclusively on the 4000 military dead would overlook the number of Iraqi civilians killed. Here accurate numbers are more difficult to come by, but The Lancet, a respected British medical journal, in an October 2006 article, “The Human Cost of the War in Iraq,” reported 655,000 Iraqis have lost their lives through violence and health factors directly related to the war. More than a year later that number is significantly higher. According to other sources the number of Iraqi dead is in the millions.

One of the problems in determining the number of Iraqi dead is just when to start counting. Back in the mid-1990, sanctions after the Gulf War included the boycotting of medical supplies to Iraq. At that time CBS asked former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright on “60 Minutes” if the sanction-related deaths of an estimated half million Iraqi children were worth it. "We think the price is worth it,” she replied. (What boycott in God’s name is worth the death of a half million children? But I digress.)

In the end the peace group decided not to focus on the 4000 fallen but instead to protest on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, a war for which after five years no end is yet in sight – a war that continues to kill our troops and devastate our economy.

Just last month Columbia University’s Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government an expert in public budgeting and finance, published a book, “The Three Trillion Dollar War – The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.” They factored in the lifetime costs of veterans’ disabilities and health care for future decades as well as the war’s impact on the American economy. That’s how they arrived at the three trillion figure, but just how much is three trillion? If you can’t picture it, neither can I. Some concrete examples might help.

Following an About.com:US Government Info example, if every American decided to pitch in to pay off the war’s eventual cost of three trillion dollars at the rate of one dollar per second (that’s right per second), it would take roughly 96,000 years! A tightly packed stack of crisp new $1000 bills, totaling $3 trillion would be 189 miles tall. That’s about the distance from the Bronx to Baltimore. No matter how you picture it, three trillion is a massive amount of money. Stiglitz and Bilmes tell us that it could solve the nation’s social security problem for the next fifty years.

Enough mind-numbing statistics. The local peace group together with the State University of New York Students for Peace wisely decided to stand together for peace to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. That protest will include remembering the 36,000 wounded and the irreplaceable loss of our 3,987 military dead. Readers wherever you are may also want to protest.

Daniel O'Rourke is a married Catholic priest. Retired from the Administration at SUNY Fredonia, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. He has published "The Spirit at Your Back," a book of his previous columns. It may be purchased or comments sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Nonviolent, Spiritual Peacemaking," column by Daniel O'Rourke

admin — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:36:32 -0400

CPJ member Dan O'Rourke is a regular contributor to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "Nonviolent, Spiritual Peacemaking" was published on September 13, 2007.

Moveon.org recently ran a full-page ad in the New York Times calling General Petraeus, “General Betray Us.” Emotionally at first, I was pleased. I knew it was a cheap shot, but I thought, “they” deserve it. It makes up for all “their” cheap shots about Saddam Hussein being behind 9/11 and on the brink of unleashing nuclear weapons on America. Emotionally I was pleased but deep in my soul I knew the ad was wrong -- and would in the long run be counter productive.

In Ron Rolheiser’s spiritually challenging book, “The Holy Longing,” he has a brief, one page section entitled “Nonviolent Peacemaking.” While acknowledging the stark lack of progress in making peace and admitting that it is also attributable to “the world’s hardness of heart” and “the entrenched powers of privilege [not being] easily moved,” he also points to the naiveté, the self-righteousness, and lack of peace in the hearts of many peacemakers.

He argues, and I paraphrase him, that many think the urgency of the peace cause is so great that they can by-pass the normal laws of public discourse and be intolerant, disrespectful and arrogant to those with opposing views. The “General Betray Us” ad is a good example.

I’m reminded of Eckhart Tolle’s insight that there is always a “competing narration.” Our minds are finite and fallible. Therefore, they are incapable of grasping, let alone expressing the whole truth -- on anything. There is always another way to look at issues, another side, another approach. Peace activists with fire in their bellies for what they perceive to be unquestionably just (and I am one) are often tempted to dismiss the competing narrations. We must, however, force ourselves to hear them respectfully. We will convince no one with angry rhetoric and our anger will diminish our message -- and our souls. We win others to peacemaking only through our example and calm, respectful dialogue.

I confess that I have succumbed to the temptation of anger in criticizing President Bush and the neo-cons that began and still control the ill conceived and disasterly managed War in Iraq. It is very difficult for me to listen to the arguments and accept the sincerity of those who agree with this President. Psychologically it is difficult; politically in the short run it probably will not be productive, but spiritually it is obligatory.

There are those who would say that this kind of tolerance concerning such an all-important issue betrays a lack of commitment and conviction. I say in response that our intolerance betrays a pride and arrogance that our analysis is the only one possible. Furthermore, as Rolheiser also says we should not judge our success and failure as peacemakers “on the basis of measurable political achievement.” We should be more interested in the long-term prospects for peace in the world than in short-term gains in specific military operations. We will accomplish these long-term goals, if we accomplish them at all, only through nonviolence and respectful, persistent diplomacy.

This might not make sense politically, but it makes eminent sense spiritually. It is, however, also how Mahatma Gandhi succeeded in India, Nelson Mandela in South Africa and Lech Walesa in Poland. Admittedly, their peace-making successes were not in military wars as such, but against formidable systemic oppression. The argument could be made that such institutionalized and widely accepted oppression was even more difficult to end than a hot war. In any case their efforts were nonviolent, peaceful and ultimately enduring. Of course, in these countries there were honest confrontations and in some instances violence by some of their followers, but these three modern peacemakers and justice workers are shining examples for us. Peace after all is the fruit of justice (Is. 32:17).

Gandhi, Mandela and Walesa had another attitude in common. They had faith. They possessed a deep spiritual belief in a just and loving God whose work on earth they saw to be their own. Their nonviolent activism was coupled with prayer. Instinctively, they knew they could not only work for peace and justice; they realized they must pray for it. Theirs were spiritual quests.

In the present heated political atmosphere, it would be naïve to expect such an approach in congress. Our representatives seem more intent on protecting their careers or favorably positioning their political parties than in a genuine, statesmen-like search for peace. Where are the politicians who see the long view of history, seek the global good of world peace, and dare to follow the example of peacemakers like Gandhi or Mandela? Many would dismiss their nonviolent, spiritual approach as mystical and unrealistic, but all of us especially we peace activists should try it. Ultimately -- I keep telling myself -- it is the only way.

Daniel O'Rourke is a married Catholic priest. Retired from the

Administration at State University of New York at Fredonia, he lives in

Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and fourth Thursday

each month. He has published "Spirit at Your Back," a book of his previous columns. The book may be purchased or comments sent to

orourke@netsync.net.

"The War Dead and Those Who Grieve Them," column by Daniel O'Rourke

admin — Sat, 26 May 2007 15:16:48 -0400

CPJ member Dan O'Rourke is a regular contributor to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "The War Dead and Those Who Grieve Them," was published on May 24, 2007.

George Bernard Shaw told us, “Nations are like bees: they cannot kill except at the cost of their own lives.” That stark, unpopular truth is evident not only in the over 3,400 American military dead, our 26,000 maimed and wounded, but also in the near fatal losses to our nation’s moral character –- not to mention the over 100,000 Iraqis killed.

A blood-chilling Pentagon survey earlier this month found that over a third of the military in Iraq supported torture to obtain information that might save the lives of American troops. The Pentagon survey reported further that 40 percent of marines and 55 percent of soldiers in Iraq said they would not report a fellow serviceman for killing or injuring innocent Iraqis.

That report led General David Petreaus, upset but sensitive to frustrated troops caught in Iraq’s civil war to say that while seeing a "fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger and a desire for immediate revenge, our troops must observe the standards and values that dictate we treat non-combatants and detainees with dignity and respect."

The General went on to say, "This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground." He then recommended the troops receive additional training in military ethics.

With all due respect, General Petreaus, the brightest, most knowledgeable General we’ve had in Iraq stumbled in his practical recommendations to right this scandal. Ethical training may help at the margins. If the General, however, really intended to address adequately these horrific lapses in military ethics, he should have stated unequivocally that he would begin court martial proceeding against any member of the military accused of torturing or deliberately killing civilians. Furthermore, he should have said that he personally would initiate a court martial against any officer covering-up such war crimes. That would get the military’s attention and would have rendered further corrosion of our national character as happened in Abu Ghraib and Hadithah less likely.

I guess it’s the approaching Memorial Day weekend, but what I write now will surprise many and be ridiculed by some. The Pentagon’s report and Petreaus’ response led me to prayer -- prayer for believers and non-believers. For believers the response in the petitions that follows is, “We pray to the Lord.” For non-believers the petitions’ contents are personal moral imperatives. After all it is more important that we hear these petitions than that God does. “He” already knows what’s needed. And it’s more significant that these sentiments reverberate in
our hearts and homes rather than in our churches -- where frankly too often they remain unspoken. Anyway, here’s a prayer for the dead in all the Mid-East wars.

For the war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, we pray to the Lord.

For the war dead in Israel, Lebanon and Palestine, we pray…
For the American and coalition military killed in combat...
For the innocent civilians killed in these wars...
For grieving spouses, children and parents, that they might be comforted in their pain and supported in their loss...
That all peoples may find the grace to eradicate the vengeance lurking in their hearts...
For those whom war has wounded in body, mind and spirit that they might have the strength to recover without self-pity or bitterness...
For the Iraqi, Afghan and American peoples...
For the Israeli, Lebanese and Palestinian peoples...
For the churches, synagogues and mosques, that these sacred places may be prophetic voices for peace and justice...
For victims of terror, war and fanaticism everywhere….

O divine Mystery, we come before you to remember those killed by terrorism and war. We pray for these victims no matter what their religion, nationality or status. We ask that you surround them with light and take them tenderly back into the mystery of your life.

We pray for the loved ones left behind to mourn their violent and untimely deaths. Heal their souls and memories. Give them the courage to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives. Help us reach out to them in compassion.

May we in our varied communities have the courage to be advocates for peace and justice in our nation and our world.

Finally, we pray for world leaders that they might have the political courage, the diplomatic patience, and dogged persistence to lead us to peace. We ask this in your all-caring name. Amen.

Daniel O’Rourke is a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University of New York at Fredonia. He lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. “Spirit at Your Back,” a book of his previous columns has just been published. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Peace is Relationships, " Daniel O'Rourke's presentation to Unitarian Congregation, January 28, 2007

admin — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:37:24 -0500

On Sunday January 28, Daniel O'Rourke was the main speaker at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Northern Chautauqua (http://www.uucnc.org/), located in Fredonia, NY. His topic was "Peace is Relationships." The title is a variation on Louise Diamond's insight that peace is connections. Among others, Dan cites Eckhart Tolle, the author of The Power of Now, who said that if the present collective madness continues, it is unlikely that our planet will survive another hundred years. The following is the text of his presentation:

Peace is Relationships
by Daniel O’Rourke

INTRODUCTION
Unlike many who write on peace, Louise Diamond in her little volume "The Peace Book" defines it. "Peace," she says, "is more than the absence of war, violence or conflict. Peace is a presence -- the presence of connection." Personalizing her insight I’ve called this talk “Peace is Relationships.”

What does Diamond mean when she says peace is connections? What do I
mean when I say peace is relationships? Both connections and relationships imply the need of an other. Both acknowledge incompleteness. Our incompleteness as a man or a woman. Our incompleteness as creatures. Our need for support, for friends, for neighbors and coworkers. Both acknowledge the incompleteness of our societies and nation states.

I’m speaking of the human need to be fulfilled, to be completed, to be inter-dependent. A clear-headed realization of our need for the other -- whether that other is spouse, partner, family, neighbor -- or the Holy.

MEN AND WOMEN
That’s a heady introduction. Allow me now a stereotype that, I hope, will help make my point.

The stereotype unpacks something like this. Among themselves men talk about five things: cars, sports, sex, money and politics. Women, on the other hand, speak to each other of one thing -- relationships. Relationships with partners, with parents, with children, relationships with friends, in-laws and coworkers. Relationships. Women, of course, in as much as the stereotype holds, are much closer than men to the truth of things. For relationships are closer to life itself.

ADOLESCENT MALES
Father Richard Rohr, the author of From Wild Man to Wise Man: Reflections on Male Spirituality has made the shrew observation that the trouble with the modern world is that it is run by adolescent boys. Boys even more than men think in terms of weapons and tanks, win-lose games, the acquisition of turf and power. That kind of thinking does not produce peace.

“I object to violence,” Gandhi told us of this male adolescent proclivity, “because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

TIME IS GROWING SHORT
Eckhart Tolle, the author of "The Power of Now” speaks of the need for a shift in collective consciousness. Only this, he says, will transform humanity from its self-centered madness to the recognition of oneness. This collective consciousness is the sum of individual consciousness. I sneeze here in New York, the mystics tell us poetically, and a candle flickers in Tibet. The physical and economic worlds are shrinking; the spiritual world is smaller and even more connected.

Time is growing short. Technology has greatly increased our capacity for human madness. Our primitive ancestors could kill a few tribal enemies with clubs.

In the trenches of World War I, machineguns, airplanes and poison gas slaughtered or maimed 22 million. That senseless bloodbath took five years. Today we have the ability to incinerate millions in minutes. For the first time in history, our survival as a race is threatened.

The 20th Century saw a hundred million people die in all its wars, persecutions and ethnic cleansings. And the 21st century is not beginning any differently. If this madness continues, it is unlikely, Tolle predicts, that our planet will survive another hundred years.

Is this a doomsday prediction? Perhaps. It could be, but there’s no doubt that we now face a collective insanity that threatens the entire planet. Many will scoff, but our chief weapons are not ballistic shields, preemptive strikes or troop deployments. Our most powerful weapons are spiritual. They are justice and compassion, understanding and tolerance, charity and acceptance. Essentially, these values are relational. We must cultivate these connections in our personal lives, our communities and between nations. If not, we will continue our relentless march toward Armageddon.

INNER PEACE
World peace begins with inner peace. This peace arises from a relationship –- a connection -- with the Good, the Holy, the underlying Mystery that many call God. This connection with the Source, which sustains us, brings with it a serenity and calmness. It transcends our pettiness and selfishness. It is the stillness and tranquility -- the peace -- that the masters taught.

The Dalai Lama for example said that, “internal peace is an essential first step to achieving peace in the world. How do you cultivate it?" he asks, “By realizing clearly that all mankind (all humanity) is one.”

PEACE WITH OTHERS
This inner peace leads inevitably to peace with others. The two are intimately related; they flow from the same Source, they grow in the same Ground, they are gifts from the same Universe. Inner peace reaches out and touches others.

It overflows into our families, out to co-workers and neighbors. These
connections recognize our shared humanity; they build relationships and
peace. They manifest themselves in understanding, in tolerance, in a lack of judgments or condemnation. They are contagious and lead to forgiveness and reconciliation.

WORLD PEACE
In an upward spiral, these relationships expand to peace in the wider world in which nations respect other nations’ rights to justice, dignity and autonomy. This leads to trust and cooperation. It can bring inter-national harmony. Again, peace is not just the absence of conflict; it is a presence. It is the presence of relationships, our inter-dependence and inter-connectedness with other nations.

NOT COMMON WISDOM
Is this idealistic? Absolutely! Is this what the masters and mystics taught? Certainly! Would the military agree? Definitely not! Neither do politicians preach this nor political scientists teach it. But Jesus warned us; the peace that he and other spiritual masters bring is not the peace the world offers. (John. 14:27) Real peace is different. It is "the presence of connections" and too often we are disconnected. Peace is relationships. Selfishness, pettiness and tribalism needlessly fracture them.

BROKEN CONNECTIONS
There are, of course, connections that should be broken. There is an important difference between physical and spiritual connections. A physical connection is not a relationship at all. Certainly sometimes we must dissolve legal bonds. Some divorces are for the peace of all involved. But even then on a spiritual level civility and courtesy should characterize divorced spouses. If the spiritual connection continues, the divorce too can be peaceful. With mature people many divorces are.

Neither does peace mean we should be against all war. Pacifists would strongly disagree, but I believe war should be the very last option. Martin Luther King was right when he observed that "wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows." Wars are quick fixes and the fix doesn’t last. History certainly teaches that.

World War I solved nothing and the spiteful, vindictive treaty at Versailles prepared the ground for the Nazis and World War II. World War II accomplished much, but at Yalta and Potsdam its promise evaporated into the cold war. And that war that was not always cold. Just ask the Hungarians. And what will this war in Iraq leave us?

GLORIFICATION OF WAR
Our societies have glorified war. We lionize our warriors. We canonize our military. We make heroes of our veterans. And some are heroes like Jason Dunham of Allegany County here in western New York who threw himself on a live grenade to save his comrades in the back of a troop truck in Iraq. On the other hand, members of the 502nd Regiment in the 4th Infantry raped a 14-year-old girl in Mahmoudiya north of Baghdad and then murdered her and her family. And some guards at Abu Ghraib were sadists. The military like any group (like Democrats and Republicans, like Christians and Muslims) have their saints and heroes and their sick and perverted. Yet all societies at war glorify their military.

As Chris Hedges, the author of the bestseller, “War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning,” said sadly since the time of the Greeks and Romans, societies have sacrificed the lives of their young to the gods of war.

In this regard we should ponder the words of an idealistic President Kennedy. “War will exist,” he said, “until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior receives today.”

WHAT CAN WE DO?
What can we do to achieve peace? Inner peace means we have to slow down. We have to center ourselves; we have to reflect and be silent. We have to push the mute button on the meaningless chatter that clutters and overwhelms our lives. We have to heed the example of the masters who stepped aside to meditate, reflect and commune with the Holy.

Peace in our hearts, in our families, in our world does not arise spontaneously. These connections do not just happen. We have to work at them. We have to work at all relationships. We have to work at our
marriages. We have to work for peace.

We must be unselfish, emphasizing what is good rather than carping and
complaining. Remember the prayer of Francis of Assisi? Make us instruments of Your peace. At their best, statesmen and diplomats do just that.

Such spiritual centeredness has even moved world leaders. Dag
Hammerskjold, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, wrote
that, “We die on the day when our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance … of a wonder, the source of which is beyond all reason.” We need that spiritual power to enlighten our limited understanding, to solidify our relationships, to reach out to the other.

That steady radiance of which Hammarskjöld spoke will enable us to do what is just for our families, our neighbors and communities. It will also goad us to work for justice in our own way in the wider international arena.

Atheists and agnostics may disagree but the Mystery, the Holy, the Source of all is unavoidable. Over the door to his home, Carl Jung inscribed five Latin words, “Vocatus atque invocatus Deus aderit.” Whether you acknowledge Him or not God will be present. Whether you call on Her or not, God will be there -- under a variety of names.

JUSTICE
Peace is relationships but it is also the fruit of justice. In the Sermon on the Mount, that most famous of Jewish rabbis not only said, “Blessed are the peacemakers….” (Mt. 5:9). He also said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice….” (Mt. 5:6)

Five centuries before Jesus, students asked Thucidides, "When will justice come to Athens?" The Greek historian answered, "Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are." Such an attitude demands great compassion.

Are you and I indignant today about AIDS in Africa, the genocide in Darfur, the war dead in the mid-East? Are we concerned about the victims of injustice even when they are not Caucasian, when they are not literate, when they are not American? When we are equally concerned for them, peace will come to Athens. Then it will come to our war-weary world.

CONCLUSION
Peace? Who has the answers? Bush and Blair? Abbas and Olmert? Al Maliki or al Sadar in Iraq? Putin in Russia? President Jintao in China? I don’t think so. Politicians and generals are often adolescent boys more concerned with things and power than with connections and relationships.

I submit that the idealists and mystics such as Louise Diamond, Richard Rohr, Gandhi and Jesus, Martin Luther King, Chris Hedges, Dag Hammarskjöld and Eckhard Tolle have the answers. We must change our collective consciousness.

If we do what we have always done, we will get what we have always got.

If we do what we have always done, we will get what we have always got
-- needless war and senseless death.

Daniel O’Rourke
Cassadaga. NY 14718

"No More War -- Metaphors" - column by Dan O'Rourke

admin — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:04:12 -0500

Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "No More War -- Metaphors," was published on November 23, 2006.

Franklin Roosevelt once famously said, “I hate war.” I do too, but I also hate war metaphors. I hate the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war on cancer. Don’t misread me, I’m all for making sustained major efforts to mitigate the pain and suffering caused by drug misuse, poverty, terrorism and cancer. It’s the metaphor I hate.

“War” not only implies sustained effort, but violent effort. It connotes physical force, shock and awe, killing and death. It is a bloody metaphor; moreover it’s simplistic and inaccurate. It’s inaccurate because it conjures up images of parades with grateful crowds welcoming victors in a snowstorm of confetti. We will never have that kind of victory over cancer, drugs, poverty or terrorism. Hopefully, humanity will make progress scientifically, politically and morally in all these areas, but at best it will mitigate these evils not obliterate them.

Jesus said, “The poor you have with you always.” (John 12:8) He was far wiser and more realistic than Lyndon Johnson who declared an all out war on poverty. Neither was Jesus cutting and running from helping the poor; he advocated feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and housing the homeless. Today he’d want to increase the minimum wage, but he knew, and we should all acknowledge, that despite these valuable efforts the poor will always be with us. Certainly Johnson made significant gains in reducing poverty, but poverty will never be eradicated. It will never surrender as the Japanese did on the
battleship Missouri.

Neither will there be a victory in the war on drugs. I write here not of legitimate pharmaceuticals but of recreational drugs. As Escohotado and Symington have pointed out in A Brief History of Drugs from the Stone Age to the Stoned Age, for thousands of years before modern history humans have been chewing betel, smoking opium and drinking wine. They still do, although the drugs used vary by culture and age group. Trendy fashions in drug choice change, but there is always some drug to make us feel good—in the short run. What it does to our bodies, minds and souls in the long run is something else altogether.

My point is that, like the poor, drug users whatever the drug of choice will always be with us. No war will conquer them. Societies, moreover, are selective and not always rational in their efforts to regulate recreational drugs. Americans are very permissive with alcohol and tobacco, but spend billions to apprehend, arrest and imprison those involved with marijuana and heroin. Whether we should do this is not the question here (although it’s a question worth pondering). My point is that a war on drugs no matter how militantly we wage it will never achieve a clear-cut victory.

What is true about the “wars” on poverty and drugs is true in spades of the so-called war on terrorism. Of course, we should oppose terrorism economically, diplomatically and use any surveillance allowable under the law. In that way we prevent many terrorist acts, but we will never completely wipe out terrorism. There will never be a World War II type
victory. Hopefully, we can keep acts of terrorism rare, minor and exceptional, but we will never eradicate them. We will never win that war.

Politicians who publicly admit that, however, would cut their political throats. Opponents would label them traitors and defeatists. And voters would believe the slander, for they have confused the metaphor with the reality. If there is a “war” on terrorism, they reason, there must be a victory. They believe the illusion that the appropriate reaction to terrorism is a war like the one we waged against the Nazis and the Japanese. It is not. The war on terror is only metaphor and the metaphor misleads us.

We in the west are susceptible to this kind of militaristic language. Our religions are full of it. Listen to King David in the psalms, “Blessed be the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle.” (Ps. 144:1) Or the book of Exodus: “The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (15:3)

And Christians are no better. Many will remember this hymn.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

It’s not only the Muslims who have jihads. Sadly, the holy war concept is ecumenical and inter-faith.

Let me end on a lighter note with the story of the minister who gave a rousing sermon to an unusually large congregation at an Easter service. He preached on enlisting in the army of the risen Lord. After the service greeting these high-holyday Christians at the church door, he said to one whom he hadn’t seen since Christmas, “Joe, I hope now you
will be a regular soldier in the army of the Lord.” Joe leaned forward and whispered in the minister’s ear, “Reverend, I’m in the Secret Service!”

When it comes to military metaphors of armies, battles and wars--whether we hear them from pulpits, government podiums or television anchors—like Joe we should be skeptical. Such metaphors mislead and deceive us.

Daniel O’Rourke is a member of the Federation of Christian Ministries and CORPUS. He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University of New York at Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Are Happy Days Here Again?" - column by Dan O'Rourke

admin — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:32:51 -0500

Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "Are Happy Days Here Again?" was published on November 9, 2006.

After one of the most negative, sleazy and expensive campaigns in political history, the Democratic Party has won control of the House of Representatives. As I write this the control of the senate is undecided.

First a disclosure: I grew up a New Deal ethnic Catholic Democrat. I was thirteen when Franklin Roosevelt died. As a boy he was the only president I had ever known. The wags in my day said the precinct captain registered Italian, Irish and Polish babies for the Democratic Party at the church baptismal fount. Those days of course are long gone. Education, upward mobility, inter-marriage and prosperity have led the children and grandchildren of that generation to the suburbs, the country club and sometimes to the Republican Party. For me, however, the democratic brand remains seared in my soul. Although I confess to voting occasionally for republican candidates, the results on Tuesday delighted me. With friends I hoisted a glass or two of champagne and joined in singing FDR’s rousing campaign song.

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again!

The morning after, however, as I finish this column, I am more somber and reflective. I have second sober thoughts. I hope the Democrats would see their mandate not as a victory of party but an opportunity to
help guide this nation back on track.

Although there were certainly other issues, these congressional mid-term elections were in effect a national referendum on the Iraq war. The nation has spoken decisively against it and the manner in which it has been mismanaged. It was clearly a vote of no confidence on President Bush. I hope he and his administration acknowledge that, but I also hope the Democrats flush with political victory would not gloat but rather offer collaboration and cooperation to a chastened President. Hopefully the administration and congress together will be able to resolve the colossal blunder in Iraq even if it means allowing President Bush to save face. They owe that to our troops, to the Iraqis and to the nation.

This will happen, of course, only if the President changes his strategy, his tone and his Secretary of Defense. If that does not occur, no matter how magnanimous the Democrats are in victory we face two more years of frustrating gridlock.

Hopefully the Republican congressional leadership will also pressure the President to change course. I am not optimistic that left alone he has the intelligence, imagination or inner security to change his tone or abandon his rigid ideology. Nor am I optimistic that the democratic majority will not be petty and vindictive in victory. I hope for the sake of the nation that I’m wrong on both counts.

The Democrats in congress must be careful. They now have power. Regardless of our political allegiances, all of us should hope they use it well. The recent scandals of Republicans in congress should remind them that power corrupts. It has happened to the Democrats in the days of Wilbur Mills and Dan Rostenkowski. It could happen again. The election was a democratic revolution, but revolutions often throw out the czars only to empower the commissars.

Nancy Pelosi, an Italian Catholic mother of five, will be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives. She is the first woman to hold that position and, as every political pundit will tell us, second in line for the presidency. Although she was vilified in the recent campaign, I have no doubts about her intelligence, competency or toughness, but she too must be careful. Power not only corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I would like to remind her of a lesson from her religious tradition -- and from mine. The Vatican does not follow this ritual anymore; it’s too medieval and triumphalistic even for Rome. But for centuries the Swiss Guard carried the newly elected Pope on a raised throne through the admiring crowds. Acolytes would burn a piece of flax before the procession. As others fanned the smoke away, a barefooted monk would chant: “Pater Sancte sic transit gloria mundi.” Holy Father so passes the glory of the world. It’s a good meditation for Speaker Pelosi. The influence, power, prestige and perks of her high office will quickly pass. What counts is the opportunity she has in this perilous time to do something not for her party but for the nation, for her grandchildren and for us all.

The democratic anthem, “Happy Days Are Here Again” has another verse.

So long sad times
So long bad times
We are rid of you at last.

We will see. Bipartisan cooperation will take humility, forgiveness and intellectual honesty in the Capitol on both sides of the aisle and in the White House. Few politicians are noted for these virtues. Happy days are here again? I hope so.

Daniel O’Rourke is a member of the Federation of Christian Ministries and CORPUS. He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University of New York at Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Political Slogans" - column by Dan O'Rourke

admin — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:51:30 -0400

Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "Political Slogans," was published on October 12, 2006.

I can understand the temptation of politicians to sum up policy or positions in short sound bites. It plays well on TV. I can even appreciate their desire to boil down complex issues further so they can fit on car bumpers and lapel buttons. Politicians and political parties have done that long before we had automobile bumpers.

The nineteenth century gave us, “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” It was eerily prophetic. Harrison, the hero of the battle with Native-Americans at Tippecanoe, died after one month in office and Harrison’s Whig party was stuck with the independent Tyler who ignored them. “Fifty-Four Forty or Fight” was about the dispute over the northern boundary of Oregon with Canada. President Polk wisely did not stay the course and never fought. He settled the boundary at forty-nine degrees latitude. He was a statesman not a cowboy.

In 1884 in one of the nastiest presidential campaigns in our history, Grover Cleveland accused his opponent, “Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the Continental Liar from the State of Maine.” Blaine, alluding to Cleveland’s illegitimate child came back with, “Ma, Ma Where’s My Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha.”

Woodrow Wilson ran for president in 1916 on the slogan, “He Kept Us Out of War.” He didn’t. In 1928 the Republicans assailed the anti-prohibition, Roman Catholic Al Smith with the taunt “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.” Religious prejudice defeated Smith, but the rebellion against the ill-fated, faith-based anti-alcohol initiative took place seven years later under President Franklin Roosevelt.

In 1920 Warren Harding promised “A Return to Normalcy.” What we got was cronyism, corruption and Teapot Dome. Ironically, Teapot Dome was another scandal with its roots in big oil, arrogance and greed. Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall went to prison; Harding died in disgrace. Normalcy?

Hoover promised “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” His administration gave us the great depression.

In the 1964 Goldwater-Johnson election, Republicans punning on Goldwater’s unabashed conservatism proclaimed, “In Your Heart You Know He’s Right.” He wasn’t. The Democrats shot back with, “In your guts you know he’s nuts.” He wasn’t.

The slogans were haunting but unrealistic. They were catchy and memorable but simplistic and misleading. They certainly weren’t an accurate summary of the issues. Only a few like Roosevelt’s “New Deal” had any substance. What that says about us whose votes are often swayed by such sloganeering is another column.

What mystifies me in the present war is the way President George W. Bush uses political slogans. Even when the issues are horribly complex and the administration and nation have detailed evidence of its complexity; the President seems capable only of regurgitating shorthand sound bites.

In the controversy after the recent Inter Agency Intelligence report, which found post-war Iraq a breeding ground for terrorists, the President can still only repeat that we will never “cut and run.” We will “stay the course.” We will “stand down when the Iraqis stand up.” Those might be snappy sound bites, but shallow, simplistic thinking.

Slogans like that could be effective marketing, but it’s a helluva way to govern a country or run a war. It certainly doesn’t inform the public or enlighten the electorate. In a democracy shouldn’t the President be a source of a more intelligent analysis and vision? Sometimes President Bush sounds like he’s selling soap. I suspect he’s selling fear.

It’s worse than that. I suspect the President really thinks in slogans. He doesn’t seem to grasp the historical, cultural and political complexities and so his mental processes default to sloganeering. He doesn’t want the facts. Facts after all are messy and inconvenient. They don’t fit a simplistic ideology. So President Bush reverts to repetitive slogans.

We should learn from our history. The slogans of the past should not only amuse us; they should warn us. Today they should prompt us to look more deeply into the political and presidential sloganeering about this god-awful war. They should urge us to read books not bumper stickers. Books like Michael Gordon’s and Bernard Trainer’s “Cobra II,” Thomas Ricks’ “Fiasco,” and Bob’s Woodruff’s “State of Denial” are the first draft of history. They are filled with nuanced intelligence and insight. The slogans aren’t.

If we must have a slogan here’s one: “Iraq: Read Books Not Bumper Stickers.”

Daniel O’Rourke is a Member of the Federation of Christian Ministries and CORPUS. He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Prejudice against Gays and Lesbians," column by Dan O'Rourke

admin — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:37:04 -0400

On September 14, Judy Shepard, mother of hate crime victim Matthew Shepard, spoke at SUNY Fredonia as part of its "Human Rights: With Liberty and Justice for All?" convocation series. After Mrs. Shepard's presentation, CPJ member Dan O'Rourke wrote the following for his regular column in the Dunkirk Observer. This was published on September 25, 2008.

“Prejudice against Gays and Lesbians”

“Guns, Gays and God” are hot button issues again. They are the preferred distraction of the political right. For the common good you’d think today they’d be rallying instead for peace, energy diversity, health care and sanity in the stock market, but they prefer simplistic slogans about “values.”

I’ve written on homosexuality before and received anonymous hate mail because of it, but after hearing a talk by Judy Shepard, mother of a gay son murdered because of his sexual orientation, I am writing again. There are some things we need to hear over and over. This is one such topic.

Some readers will recall Judy Shepard’s son Matthew, a 21 year-old gay student who in 1998 was tied to a fence in Laramie, Wyoming, tortured, pistol-whipped by gay bashers and left for dead in near freezing temperatures.

Ten years after his death, Judy Shepard admits that society has grown and that things are getting better. No longer would any politician refer publicly to homosexuals as “fruits and queers” as, God help us, the Mayor of Buffalo, NY did in 1983. The support given by Vice President Cheney and former Congressman Gephardt and their wives toward their lesbian daughters are positive examples of progress. The enthusiastic welcome Shepard received on the university campus and the success of Matthew Shepard Foundation are also proof of the improved climate, but as Shepard reminded us we have a long way to go.

Why are things improving? I think a quick answer is openness and longevity. The young are more comfortable speaking of sexual orientation and coming out – although still it is often painful. At the same time their parents and grandparents are living longer. They had always loved their children and grandchildren and when confronted with their gayness they are forced to reconsider their generation’s prejudices. Then they come to the inevitable conclusion that sexual orientation is not really that important and continue to love their gay children. The issue now is no longer abstract; it has a human face – a young man or woman whom they cherish.

But as Shepard reminded us, on homosexuality our society is too often SIC (pronounced “sick”): silent, indifferent and complacent. The straight community needs to show concern and speak out against this mindless prejudice whenever it lifts its ugly head. We should speak up at the family supper table, when chatting with neighbors, and always voice disapproval of demeaning jokes and hateful words. “No words, no jokes, no laughter,” Shepard told us.

In his little gem of a book, “The Four Agreements,” Don Miguel Ruiz tells us that the most important agreement with ourselves is “to be impeccable with your word.” A word can heal or hurt, reject or welcome, give life or bring death. The old childhood rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is wrong. Words often hurt deeply -- and sometimes irreparably. Many a gay child has learned self-loathing because of an insensitive adult’s hurtful put-downs or mean-spirited remarks. We should always speak kindly and gently about all people.

There are two major political and legal issues concerning homosexuals. They are gay marriage and homosexuals in the military. Same-sex marriage is an attempt by many to provide official recognition and all its attendant legal rights to gay and lesbian couples. Many countries such as Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain already do this. Some in this country have suggested that the word “marriage” be confined to a religious context and prefer the term “civil unions” for the legal contract. Religious communities then according to their own beliefs, rules and degree of openness can, if they choose, perform same sex marriages as do Spiritus Christi in Rochester, New York and Unitarian Universalist Congregations.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz argues that a clear distinction between a religious marriage and a civil union (even though a couple could certainly have both) would “strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.” Many disagree, however, claiming that equating marriage with a legal agreement would diminish heterosexual marriage. Politicians playing to the prejudice of voters like to say that same sex unions would threaten the sanctity of the traditional marriage of a man and woman. That hasn’t happened in Belgium or Norway, but if politicians are so anxious to preserve the sanctity of marriage why not sponsor legislation to allow divorce only after a waiting period and mandatory marital counseling? Don’t hold your breath. Such legislation would not fare well in focus groups.

Another practical issue is prejudice against gays in the military. President Clinton attempted to change it. He couldn’t. His “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was no change at all. Shepard said it was a bad policy with disastrous consequences. It forced homosexuals and bisexuals in the military farther back in the closet. Unlike the United States most western militaries accept gays. Of the twenty-six countries with armed forces in NATO, more than twenty permit homosexuals to serve openly. Canada after an extensive study has dropped its military ban on gays. Israel allows gays and lesbians to serve openly. None of these armed forces have experienced the lack of cohesion and demoralization that our military brass claim would happen if we allowed gays to openly serve. Ironically, as recruitment for the military becomes more difficult, the army is accepting recruits with less education and more with criminal records -- but not gays and lesbians if they are out of the closet.

Judy Shepard has made her son Matt's crucifixion redemptive. The entire world has repudiated the hate crime that murdered him. His mother has channeled her grief into an educational crusade to replace hate with understanding, compassion and justice. She has established the Matthew Shepard Foundation. Visit its website at www.matthewshepard.org.

Daniel O'Rourke is a married Catholic priest. Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. He has published "The Spirit at Your Back," a book of previous columns. You may purchased it or send comments to orourke@netsync.net.

Column by Dan O'Rourke, "Sarah Palin: Who? Why? When?"

admin — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:43:29 -0400

CPJ member Dan O'Rourke writes a regular column in the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "Sarah Palin: Who? Why? When?" was published on September 11, 2008.

As the whole world knows by now Sarah Palin, the former mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage, and Governor of Alaska is the candidate of the Republican Party for Vice President of the United States. An attractive, plainspoken self-defined hockey mom, her speech at the Republican convention energized her audience of true believers. It had them leaping to their feet cheering wildly. She brought excitement and passion to John McCain’s dull and listless campaign.

But what do we really know about her? Her talk carefully crafted by the McCain campaign staff and skillfully delivered from a teleprompter told us little. We learned about her appealing family, of course, but her lists of accomplishment, such as her on-again, off-again opposition to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, her implication that she sold the former governor’s jet on eBay, the nature of her opposition to the oil companies in Alaska, her hiring of Washington lobbyists to bring home pork to Wasilla has raised many eyebrows and questions. Up to now, however, she has been shielded from the public and press like a contagious patient in an intensive care unit.

Republican strategists are quick to accuse anyone in the media who raises disturbing questions of gender bias. There is, however, a lot to investigate. Palin’s allegedly vindictive termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, because he would not fire state trooper Michael Wooten, ex- husband of Palin’s sister, is currently under bipartisan investigation by the Alaska Legislature. The Associate Press has reported that Palin attended five different colleges in six years before graduating in 1987 from the University of Idaho. Why did she change colleges so often? When Mayor of Wasilla, she attempted to ban books in the local library. The town librarian Mary Ellen Emmons now Baker resisted; Palin tried unsuccessfully to remove her. What were the titles of those books? Rumors are bouncing all over the Internet. I hope the threats and bluster of the McCain campaign will not intimidate the media from investigating all this – and more.

Let me say clearly, though, what Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and every woman know: there is a double standard for men and women especially when they run for high office. No one would ever question a male candidate like Barack Obama on how he would be able to perform the duties of his office and at the same time take care of his young children. The criticisms of Palin that she would be neglecting her Down Syndrome baby or her pregnant teenaged daughter clearly reflect this bias.

To his credit Obama has stated that the children of candidates should be a campaign no-no. I thought his comments were pitch perfect. “Let me be as clear as possible. I think people’s families are off-limits, and people’s children especially off-limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.”

But why did McCain choose her as his running mate? Many suspect it was a desperation move to galvanize the dispirited Republican base. (It has clearly worked.) But did McCain actually think she was qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America? (I doubt it. Don’t you?)

Two high ranking Republicans, speechwriter Peggy Noonan and McCain strategist Mike Murphy were caught criticizing Palin as they kept talking after an NBC interview when they thought the mike was dead. Murphy said the choice of Palin was cynical. Noonan who had previously praised Palin in print said, “It’s over,” and added “Most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bull****.” After her comments surfaced, Noonan apologized for her barnyard language and said her “it’s over” comment was taken out of context.

Political candor is rare. I guess it takes an unsuspected open mike to tell us what politicians really think. Whenever I hear political professionals twist and spin the facts, I think of Lyndon Johnson who said, “A good politician can make chicken salad out of chicken****.” Johnson like Noonan spoke the same barnyard vernacular -- and they both were right.

We’ve heard a lot of that vernacular about Governor Palin and her thorough vetting by John McCain. The McCain campaign has adamantly refused to answer any more questions about her vetting. Apparently, McCain only had met her twice, was charmed by her personality and maverick nature and impulsively picked her as his running mate. No one at Palin’s many colleges, for example, remembers being contacted in any vetting process. Neither do any officials in the Alaska State legislature. What does this say about McCain’s character? NY Times columnist Frank Rich has answered that, “His [McCain’s] decision making process is impetuous and, in its Bush-like preferences for gut instinct over facts, potentially reckless.”

Instead of gushing over Sarah Palin and hailing her like the messiah coming to Washington, we should withhold final judgment and let the press do its work. I personally think her choice has been a disaster for an election based on the issues but when the McCain campaign discharges her from her isolation ward and allows her to answer questions from ABC ‘s Charles Gibson later this week, we should know more. That is if Gibson has not agreed in advance to limit his questioning and to avoid hot-button topics.

We will see. I’d like Palin to appear on Face the Nation and Meet the Press as Obama, McCain and Biden often have. Then the press could do the vetting which the McCain campaign has failed to do. Until then her good looks, her folksy demeanor, or her appealing family should not seduce us.