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?

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 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

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.

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?

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

 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