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

"Who Lost China? Who Lost Health Care?," column by Dan O'Rourke

admin — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:30:52 -0600

CPJ member Dan O'Rourke writes a regular column for the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "Who Lost China? Who Lost Health Care?," was published January 28, 2010.

In 1949-50 the political question of the day was “Who lost China?” Mao and the Communists had defeated Chiang Kai-Shek in the Chinese Civil War. Overnight China, an ally in the war against Japan had become a communist enemy. Senator Joseph McCarthy in a finger-pointing crusade blamed communist sympathizers. McCarthy’s demagogic witch-hunts ruined political, academic and journalistic careers and blacklisted many. It was not America’s finest hour.

Historians’ analysis of China’s “loss” has recognized the complexities of Chinese politics, the military weakness and personal arrogance of Chiang Kai-Shek, and the un-American excesses of McCarthyism. Eventually in 1974, the Senate censured Senator McCarthy. Chiang Kai-Shek retreated to Taiwan, whose economy subsequently -- and ironically -- prospered. Finally, President Richard Nixon visited China in 1972 and broke down cold war barriers. History had many surprises.

China’s shift to Communism was the convergence of many historical influences. No one “lost” it. The question before us today: “Who lost health care?” is domestic. Like the “loss” of China, however, the debate is nasty and the answer complex.

The biggest losers in the loss of health care, however, are people like Mark Windsor. Uninsured with life-threatening diseases, Mark was 27 when surgeons removed a chondrosarcoma tumor, a rare bone cancer, from his neck. He thought he was cured. Years later he left his job with its company-paid health insurance to pursue his dream of becoming a photographer. He never thought the cancer would return. It did. He was uninsurable. He died recently at the age of 53.

Who, however, is responsible that health care reform is not becoming law? No one person is. There is lots of blame to go around. Here’s a partial list.

It’s the fault of President Barack Obama who failed to take leadership on this historic legislation, which was to be his signature achievement. He waited too long, was too vague on what he wanted, and much too deferential to Congress.

It’s the fault of the congressional Republicans who saw defeating health care reform as denying Obama a political victory. They were more concerned with scoring political points than in fixing a health system that everyone admits is broken.

It’s the fault of the congressional Democrats who avoided any tort reform that would reduce medical malpractice lawsuits and doctors’ defensive over-prescribing.

It’s the fault of Majority Leader Harry Reid who to ensure 60 votes and avoid a filibuster negotiated pork-laden deals with Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

It’s the fault of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi whose approach to the house version of the bill was unashamedly partisan.

It’s the fault of Senator Joseph Lieberman who every week had different reasons for opposing the senate version of the bill. He seemed more interested in being in the spotlight than shedding light on the legislation.

It’s the fault of a deceptive advertising campaign of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries that spent millions to raises fears in the minds of the already insured and the elderly.

Ultimately, however, the failure to reform health care is the fault of the arcane rules of the Senate. Presently, a 41-member minority party can block legislation by filibuster. Why does the Senate need a supermajority on every piece of meaningful legislation? Filibusters are strangling the Senate of the United States.

Even the threat of a filibuster can lead to outlandish bribes like those to Senators Nelson and Landrieu. Moreover, the filibuster is not in the constitution; it is simply a senate rule. The Senate has modified this rule before. It is time to do it again.

Opponents of health care reform have criticized public health care as being socialist, totalitarian even communist. At best those claims are a stretch. At worst they are dishonest. Are our public highways socialist? Are public schools totalitarian? Is public transportation un-American?

Moreover, doesn’t the government administer Medicare, Medicaid and VA’s health care for veterans? Are these publicly managed health systems communistic? Of course not, and in comparison to private insurance companies, they are not inefficient. They do not pay out billions for lobbyists, for PR advertising and in political contributions for election campaigns. There's certainly a valid debate here on cost and coverage, but that debate is not about Marxist communism -- or death panels.

Those disappointed with the limitations of a health care bill should remember some history. Like the debate on the “loss” of China, it is full of surprises. When Social Security first became law in 1935, it had no provisions for farm workers, for government employees, for domestic help, for many teachers and social workers. Even then it was criticized as discriminatory on the basis of race and gender. Congress, however, passed it and the Supreme Court upheld it. Social Security turned out to be historic legislation. Over the years Congress would gradually add those segments of the workforce it initially excluded. Inevitably, the same evolution awaits an imperfect health care bill -- if indeed there ever will be one.

But the bottom line on health care is that billions of dollars are involved at every level of the insurance system -- and people and corporations hate losing money.

Many like Mark Windsor and Janell Smith, however, have lost more than money. Janell was an anorexic to whom, according to her parents’ attorney, her insurance company did not provide adequate treatment. Janell was hospitalized weighing 63 pounds! She was gaining strength and weight with nourishment from a feeding tube. Her health insurance, however, did not want to continue this treatment. The results were tragic. Janell went home despondent and took her own life -- another needless death that health care reform could have prevented.

If we could put politics aside -- and we can’t -- where is our national compassion for the Janells and Marks in our affluent and prosperous nation?

Dan O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His columns appear each month in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published "The Spirit at Your Back," a book of previous columns. To read about the book or send comments on this column visit his website http://www.danielcorourke.com

"Gays in the Military," Dan O'Rourke's latest column

admin — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:13:52 -0500

The following, Gays in the Military, was written by CPJ member Daniel O'Rourke and published in his Dunkirk Observer column on September 24, 2009.

Just last week, the Associate Press reported that “British Prime Minster Gordon Brown offered a posthumous apology for the ‘inhumane’ treatment of Alan Turing, the World War II code breaker who committed suicide in 1954 after being prosecuted for homosexuality and forcibly treated with female hormones.” He was only forty-two years old.

Prime Minister Brown said that he was both pleased and proud to have the opportunity to recognize the contributions and to apologize to Turing, a brilliant mathematician, who in WW II broke the German Enigma code.

The Prime Minister formally stated, “ It is no exaggeration to say that, without his [Turing’s] outstanding contribution, the history of World War II could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped turn the tide of the war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying that he was treated so inhumanely. … So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work, I am proud to say; we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.”

Fifty years later in our own country, President Bill Clinton attempted to change the policy prohibiting gays from serving openly in the military. He failed. His “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” solution was bad policy with unintended consequences. It forced gays and lesbians already in the military farther back into the closet and continued to deny the United States the talents and skills that homosexuals, like Turing, could contribute to our country. Years later Hilary Clinton said that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” had been responsible for the dismissals from the military of a number of desperately needed Arabic linguists. A crippling loss to our intelligence gathering in the Miiddle East. When will we finally recognize our gay and lesbian soldiers, marines and sailors -- and their talents? The time is long overdue for our government to change this homophobic, shortsighted, wrong-headed policy.

Unlike the United States most western militaries openly 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 dropped its military ban on gays. Israel too allows gays and lesbians in its military. None of these armed forces have experienced the lack of cohesion and demoralization that some senior military officers claim would result if we allowed gays to openly serve. Ironically, as military recruitment becomes more difficult, the army is enlisting candidates with less education and more extensive criminal records -- but not accepting open and honest homosexuals.

The countries which allow gays to serve in the military, according to the International Lesbian and Gay Association and the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, “are Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.” Now, that’s an impressive military litany!

In addition to the United States those countries, which ban gays, are “Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Croatia, Greece, Poland, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Turkey and Venezuela. The list does not include countries in which homosexuality is banned outright, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and several other Middle East nations. These countries generally have no stated policy on gays in the military because they do not allow or acknowledge the presence of gays at all.”

But back to England, the Box Turtle Bulletin reports that the July 2009 cover of “Soldier Magazine” an official British Army publication shows Trooper James Wharton in full dress uniform wearing his Iraq medal with the word “pride” highlighted on the cover. This is the first time in the magazine’s history that an openly gay service member has been so featured. The Brits have come a long way since their shameful treatment of Alan Turing -- and they continue to teach us.

A confidential review of all branches of the military in the United Kingdom found “that most officers at junior ranks, particularly among the younger ones, had accepted the lifting of the ban [on gays in the military] without much comment. It was only amongst the older Senior Non-Commissioned and Warrant Officer that it had met significant resistance.”

In this country, a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on gays serving openly is past due. General Wesley Clark has said as much. General Colin Powell, who fifteen years ago helped develop that unfortunate policy for the Clinton administration said last year on CNN that “we should definitely reevaluate it.” In November 2007, Candidate Barak Obama promised to work with Congress, the Department of Defense, and the military’s senior command to develop “an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Up to now his administration has been dragging its feet.

Certainly, the President’s plate is overflowing. I understand why he does not need another contentious issue, but this is not just a question of civil rights or potential skills for the military. Like universal health care, it is a moral issue. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” failed policy is hateful and cruel. Its repeal is long overdue.

Dan O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published "The Spirit at Your Back," a book of previous columns. To read about the book or send comments on this column visit his website http://www.danielcorourke.com/

"Obama's Strengths Are His Weaknesses," column by Daniel O'Rourke

admin — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:47:51 -0500

The following, Obama's Strengths Are His Weaknesses was written by CPJ member Daniel O'Rourke. It was published in Dan's regular column in the Dunkirk Observer on September 10, 2009.

This column is about President Barack Obama, but I want to start by talking about all of us. The psychological cliché, “Our strengths are our weakness” is true for everyone. Our personality traits are a continuum running from one extreme to the opposite extreme. If we are passionately committed to gardening, for example, then we will grow extremely impatient when a fungus rots the tomatoes. The passion and impatience are the extremes of the same personality trait; they are two sides of the coin.

If you think about it, there are many such examples. If we are decisive getting things done, we must be careful that we are not impulsive. Confidence can become arrogance. Tenacity can turn into stubbornness. Our loving care to help a child can lead to enabling -- so the child is less able to help himself. You get the idea. The positive aspects of our personalities can too easily morph into negative characteristics.

Now let’s take a look at our President. Some may disagree, but here are his strengths. He is intelligent. He is calm. He is friendly. He sees all sides of issues and is therefore inclined to listen and negotiate. He is agreeable, i.e. not mean-spirited. Also -- and admittedly this is more a factor of birth than a personality trait -- he is African American. All of these helped elect him president with substantial majorities in both the popular and electoral vote.

As I write this column, however, President Obama’s poll numbers are slipping. His honeymoon is over. The multi-headed economic and military monster he inherited has ambushed him -- and the country. Americans want quick solutions and have grown impatient. Simultaneously Obama is confronting a number of major crises. I won’t even address nuclear arms negotiations with Russia, cap and trade and global warming, Iran and Israel, or the rising unemployment rate; I only want to mention two crises. The first in passing, whether or not to increase the number of troops in the increasingly unpopular Afghanistan war -- a war whose win-ability is being questioned publicly even by senior Democrats and the President’s advisors. But I’m going to focus on the second: whether or not the President should dramatically shape the floundering health reform effort and push strongly for some sort of public option.

By the time you read this, the President will already have addressed a joint session of Congress. His willingness to negotiate and compromise with Senate Republicans has backfired. The Republicans see the issue as a way to bring him down politically. Senator Jim DeMint (R, South Carolina) said it; “If we are able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

Obama’s ability to compromise, his openness to the ideas of others and genuine desire for bipartisanship on health care has boomeranged. These characteristics have morphed into weakness. He now appears to many as vacillating, unsure of what he wants or what he will settle for in the bill, yet unwritten, that eventually will reach his desk. His openness has transmuted into indecisiveness. Perhaps last evening’s historic speech to a joint session of Congress will have changed this. We will see.

The Lewin Group, a research-consulting firm owned by United Health Group, and widely parroted by the Republicans congressional leadership has orchestrated an effective misinformation campaign with outlandish claims that have lead to fear and hysteria. They say health care reform would establish death panels for the elderly, drastically reduce your Medicare benefits, and ration the medical procedures for which you are eligible. (AARP by the way disagrees.) The health insurance industry, with billions in profits at stake, has marketed their lies with bumper sticker clarity. No Death Panels! Obama Lies, Grandma Dies! No Socialized Medicine! No Health Care for Illegal Immigrants!

Up to now Obama’s attempts to refute these distortions have been ineffective. He has addressed them intelligently but academically with detail and nuance. His intellectual ability, however, has not worked. He has come over as lecturing, boring and pedantic. His intelligence has become a weakness. Perhaps last night’s speech to Congress will have proved me wrong.

I readily admit that sometimes the President has put his own spin on the budget numbers and many question whether his proposals will produce as much savings as he states. For many his numbers just do not compute.

Of course, there should be a debate on health care, but it should be civil and honest. There are key questions of cost, malpractice and the extent of government involvement. The various options should be weighed and argued. That has not happened. Instead we have outlandish claims and name-calling epithets. (Do any thoughtful citizens really think that our President is another Adolph Hitler?)

On his every initiative, the President faces such outlandish slander. His talk to schoolchildren is a telling example. In these insults I smell the stench of racism. A small percentage of Americans just cannot accept that we have elected an African American President -- and they oppose his every step. Like Rush Limbaugh they do not want him to succeed. They have created an atmosphere of hate in the country. We can only pray it does not lead to violence.

Speaking of prayer – and violence, the Rev. Steven Anderson, Pastor of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona says he prays for President Obama’s death! He prays that the President will die of brain cancer like Ted Kennedy. Anderson says he is against violence, but one of his parishioners after hearing his sermon brought a semi-automatic rifle to a rally in Phoenix where Obama was addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars. That was not the first time right wing extremists have brought guns to events when Obama was speaking.

We too should pray for our President, but unlike Pastor Anderson, we should pray that God will shield him from the fanatics, from the Birthers and the Deathers who cannot accept an African American as President of these United States.

"Conspiracies Show Our Prejudices," column by Dan O'Rourke

admin — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:33:05 -0500

The following, "Conspiracies Show Our Prejudices," by CPJ member and regular columnist in the Dunkirk Observer, Daniel O'Rourke, was published on Thursday August 13, 2009.

The word “conspiracy” comes from the Latin meaning to breathe together. Recently, there has been some heavy breathing -- hyperventilation really -- over President Obama’s place of birth. There’s a small but vocal group of Birthers, who persistently claim Obama was not born in the United States and therefore, in accordance with the Constitution, is not legitimately President. The evidence to the contrary, however, is overwhelming.

The Birthers claim that Obama’s birth certificate, which has been digitally copied and widely circulated, is insufficient -- even forged. Staffers at Factcheck (skeptics should check out www.factcheck.org) have “seen, touched, examined and photographed” the original certificate. Their conclusion: it is genuine; Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii’s Director of Public Health has confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu. Linda Lingle, the governor of Hawaii -- a Republican -- has also declared the birth certificate authentic.

The downtown Honolulu Public Library, moreover, has microfilm of a notice in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961. Under “Births, Marriages, Deaths,” it reports the President’s birth: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, a son, August 4.” No evidence, however, will ever be sufficient to convince the Birthers. They are conspiracists and evidence doesn’t matter. Many consider them right-wing, wing nuts. They have made up their minds. They do not want to believe that Obama is our legitimate president. How could he be? He is an African American with a Muslim sounding name.

Conspiracies are not new and don’t easily go away. Sixty years after Pearl Harbor, some still believe that President Franklin Roosevelt provoked the Japanese attack, knew about it in advance, and did not prevent it because Machiavellian-like he wanted the country to be drawn into the war in Europe. Historians now have access to all significant reports, documents and memoirs. Their consensus: our national intelligence agencies had indeed picked up evidence of a pending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but that bureaucratic bungling and not Roosevelt’s conniving were responsible for our not preventing it. But don’t try to convince Roosevelt haters of this. They are psychologically programmed to believe the worse of him. No matter what historians conclude, it will not change their minds.

Consider too the assassination of President Kennedy. Despite three separate government investigations that have found otherwise, some still claim Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and that there was another gunman firing from the grassy knoll in Dallas. Dozens of books have been written on that conspiracy.

Deniers of the Holocaust are an outrageous international example. These conspirators reject or minimize the Nazi genocide of five to seven million European Jews. Despite overwhelming documentary evidence of Nazi policy and contemporary newsreel footage of concentration camps and their gas chambers, they continue to deny the Holocaust. They have written dozens of books attempting to rationalize their preposterous conclusions. Deniers of the Holocaust, however, will never go away because they are conspiracists.

History has many examples of people believing what the scientific and academic communities deny. Some examples are harmless like the Sasquatch Bigfoot and the Lock Ness Monster; others like the Holocaust Deniers and the Birthers are insidious.

There are also examples of religious conspiracies. The sudden death in September 1978 of Pope John Paul I only a month after his election as Pope has prompted some. His death in the papal chambers without witnesses and the Vatican’s untruthful statements concerning his death have encouraged a number of conspiracy theories. David Yallop, Malachi Martin, and Robert Huthchison in their books have linked his death to poisoning in an attempt either to avoid more adverse publicity for the Vatican in the Banco Ambrosiano banking scandal, or to silence the new pope’s liberal views concerning church teaching on birth control (allegedly he said they were outdated), or to squelch his opposition to Opus Dei, a highly conservative and influential church group.

On the other hand, John Cornwell’s book, “A Thief in the Night” claims that Albino Luciani, the future Pope Paul I, had already been in poor health. The late Pope’s niece Pia Luciani, a medical doctor confirmed this claim. She said his ankles and feet were so swollen that he could not wear the papal shoes at the time of his election. His blood pressure was alarmingly low and two years prior he had suffered a retinal embolism. The most likely cause of death was a pulmonary embolism not poison, but try telling that to the conspiracists who want to believe that the Roman Church, as in medieval times, still encourages the murder of troublesome popes.

Some people just do not trust the government (The Kennedy Assassination). Some are instinctively suspicious of Franklin Roosevelt (Pearl Harbor). Some are anti-Semitic (Holocaust Deniers). Some are anti-Catholic (John Paul’s Death). And some just can’t believe that an African American is President of the United States (The Birthers). But what do all these conspiracists have in common? They are all so deeply committed to their conspiracy that no evidence or fact will change their minds.

Moreover, what can conspiracies of all types teach us? We should work hard to have reason instead of prejudice form our judgments. We should try our best to see what is really there and not what we would like to be there. To paraphrase only slightly Max Born, the Nobel Prize winning physicist: The belief that there is only one truth and that I possess it is the deepest root of evil in the world.

Retired from the Administration at State University of New York at Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published "The Spirit at Your Back," a book of previous columns. To read about the book or send comments on this column visit his website http://www.danielcorourke.com/

"The Election - The Inspiring and the Ugly," column by Dan O'Rourke

admin — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:51:44 -0600

The following, "The Election - The Inspiring and the Ugly," by CPJ member and regular columnist in the Dunkirk Observer, Daniel O'Rourke, was published on Thursday November 27, 2008.

I wasn’t going to write about the presidential election. The print media has already poured barrels of ink over it. To call it historic is now a cliché. On election night both McCain’s concession speech and Obama’s victory acknowledgment were eloquent, magnanimous and healing. Wiser columnists than I have written sagely about the election, but here are some thoughts on the election’s aftermath.

Jesse Jackson’s tears caught on TV in Chicago’s Grant Park as the networks flashed the news of the election of the first Black president moved me. Subsequent coverage of enthusiastic worldwide reactions from old Europe, to emerging Asia, to ancient Africa also made me proud to be an American.

The White House visit of the President Elect and his wife and the gracious welcome by President and Laura Bush were lessons in how a true democracy hands over power. It was a dramatic example to the world. The winners in many elections are fortunate if the loser doesn’t poison, assassinate or exile them. Think Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukraine, Benazir Bhuto in Pakistan, or Morgan Tsvanirai in Zimbabwe.

I listened in admiration to the President-Elect’s calm, intelligent answers on “Sixty Minutes” during Steve Kroft’s wide-ranging interview. President Bill Clinton could also speak intelligently in complete grammatical paragraphs, but unlike Clinton the president-to-be also exhibited calmness and discipline. Bill Clinton might have been a Rhodes Scholar, but he had the discipline of a tomcat. Obama has the discipline of a Zen monk -- without, of course, the celibacy.

Michelle Obama has emerged in this post election period as a strong, intelligent and loving wife. The interplay between her and her husband on “60 Minutes” was tender and endearing. She will speak up and he will listen. She will bring him back to earth if he tends to get too full of himself. She will point out his humanity and limitations. She will be no Nancy Reagan staring star-struck at her man, nor a Hillary Clinton competing fiercely with hers, but she will be a strong, influential and steadying influence.

Napoleon Bonaparte once told his French colleagues, "A leader is a "dealer in hope." That’s what Franklin Roosevelt gave this nation in the 1930s. That’s what Ronald Reagan gave us in the 1980s. And whatever our politics, we should anticipate that our young president can also galvanize this nation with hope. Today we sorely need that optimism.

Obama will need all the help he can get. In many ways he’s inheriting a broken country. We’re facing a global financial meltdown with two wars and an over-stretched military. Unemployment is up and housing starts down. The auto industry is on the verge of bankruptcy. The stock market gyrates dangerously like a drunk on a roller coaster. No matter for whom we voted, Obama is our President and we must unite
behind him.

Some have criticized Obama’s appointments as overly representative of those who once served President Clinton. The same folks who once labeled Obama too inexperienced are now knocking him for appointing experienced Washington hands, but he’s not appointing cronies. There are no old friends like Alberto Gonzales from Texas or Mack McLarty, a crony from Arkansas who was Bill Clinton’s first chief of staff. McLarty only lasted one year; he was a disaster. So was Gonzales. Sadly, as Attorney General he lasted much longer.

The intellectual quality of Obama’s appointments, moreover, underscores his self-confidence. He has not surrounded himself with “yes” men or women. He likes the clash of ideas. He will hear them out and make his own decisions. In that way his cabinet will be more like Franklin Roosevelt’s than Abraham Lincoln’s team of rivals.

On the shadow side, Obama’s election has given rise to a wave of racial hate. The Associate Press reported that William Ferris from the University of South Carolina explained that a Black president is “the most profound change in the field of race this country has experienced since the Civil War. It’s shaking the foundation on which the country has existed for centuries.” That foundation regrettably, especially but not only in the South, was slavery, bigotry and discrimination.

The AP reported that far from the South “in Standish, Maine a sign inside the Oak Hill General Store read: Osama Obama Shotgun Pool. Customers could sign up to bet a dollar on a date when Obama would be killed.”

A district official in Rexburg, Idaho said second and third grade students on a school bus chanted “assassinate Obama.” Bigots burned crosses in Obama supporters’ front yards in Hardwick, NJ and Apolacan Township, PA. What does this say about this country’s racism? It would be naïve to think this election has excised it from the national soul. As William Ferris remarked, “Racism is like cancer. It’s never totally wiped out, it’s in remission” -- and after this election it
has again metastasized.

Obama’s election has been a recruitment boon for the Ku Klux Klan. A newly energized KKK is using the Internet to recruit others who think they should eliminate the national humiliation of a Black family in the White House. According to authorities reported by the Associate Press, Obama has received more threats of violence than any other president-elect.

In Swahili the word “Barak” means blessing. All of us should hope that his administration will deliver that blessing. We should pray that the benevolent universe that has somehow brought him to us would guide him in his judgments and protect him from the racial hate and violence that still lurks in too many twisted minds.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published "The Spirit at Your Back," a book of his previous columns. To read about the book or send comments on this column visit his website: danielcorourke.com

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

admin — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:07:58 -0500

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 16:53:26 -0500

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 14:36:32 -0500

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 14:16:48 -0500

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 12:37:24 -0600

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