Thank You John Pilger For Your Courageous Words

Dear Mr. Pilger,

Thanks for your direct and courageous words against the US Empire and the UK's complicity in the plunder of the Middle East. We know that the Islamic countries of the Middle East have a lot to do to improve how they deal with human rights, but it is the continuing violations of human rights and international law by Israel -- and the support for those violations by the USA and UK -- that prevents, without a laming hypocrisy, the discussions of the human rights and wrongs of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, etc..

Rather than taking the party line of Empire by saying Israel must be supported at all costs because it is the only democracy in the region, I say that the other countries of the region can't consider democratizing while Israel continues as the visible and painful hypocrisy of democracy.

Thanks again,
Gregory Wonderwheel

Mr. Pilger's truth in journalism may be read at his website at johnpilger.com

The Heart of Humanity Speaks in the Congo

The BBC World Service has done the world a great service by a report on the Congo election via the internet. Here is the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5213400.stm


Reporter Joseph Winter set up a live laptop link from a market place in Democratic Republic of Congo's second city, Lubumbashi, connecting local people with others aroung the world.

Today, as I came across this exchange and read it my heart leapt with joy to hear the authentic voices of people who cry out for the shared truths of life: a good life with family, work, and an honest government.

In the USA we get so much distorted news about Africa that we think the African people are somehow as corrupt ats their leaders. Here, we hear from the people themselves who share the concerns about corruption in government and wish only for people to be elected with good ideas for their nation.

What this report shows is that people around the globe share the desire for true democracy and that democracy is only threatened by corrupt leaders, not by the aspirations of the people.

Here's an example of a question and the answer from some of the locals:

Question from Charlotte, Edinburgh to the voters, 0947 local time (0747 GMT / 0847 BST)

Q: What do the voters think is the most important thing that a new government should deliver on?

Ikos: We want the government to encourage investors to rebuild our country.

Schadrac: Rehabilitation of Congo's economic-social-cultural tissue.

Viviane: Self-sufficiency in food.

Demaman: Rebuild schools.

Chinabu: Good governance and a strong currency.

~~~

The reason I find this so moving is that from the generalized picture painted by the media in the USA there are no such people as Ikos, Schadrac, Viviane, Demanan, and Chinabu on the streets in Africa.

I hope that these dear people will have some success with their election and that the people of the USA could be half as intelligent as these voters in understanding the role of the USA and multinational corporations in fighting democracy in Africa and keeping places like the Congo poor and in political unrest.

Reply to Sam Harris’ “An Atheist Manifesto”

Sam Harris has written an essay title "An Atheist Manifesto" that is available on line at
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/



First, a somewhat sophomoric joke:

Q: What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?
A: Someone who comes to your door for no reason at all.

*

There is a meaning in the madness of that joke for those with ears to hear. Who comes to your six doors and for what reason?

*

This is a response from a Buddhist who feels that both theism and atheism are one-sided views, both part correct from their sides but both therefore part wrong.

I certainly agree with Sam Harris about some of the inconsistencies of religious belief and the downright violence of conduct based on the absurd premise of taking religious myth as fact, still, in my mind he goes too far in throwing out the baby of reality with the baptismal bath water. Yes it is obvious to me, as he says, “that much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy,” still that does not confirm any atheist conviction nor does is guarantee that atheists know any better how run a country or avoid atheist taboos and superstitions.

The core problem is that both theists and atheists don’t speak the same language. When either theists or atheists get control of state power, if they are zealots and fundamentalists (yes there are fundamentalist atheists such as totalitarian-minded communists) they will use that state power to oppress others who disagree with them. This connection between fundamentalist theists and atheists can be seen in Harris’ comment, “While fundamentalists justify their religious beliefs with extraordinarily poor evidence and arguments, at least they make an attempt at rational justification.”

Atheists believe that rational language is all that is needed, so they ignore the sources of conflict in the human imagination that arise from the deep image-making roots of consciousness. Theists on the other hand tend to believe that irrational feelings, along with the imaginings that make sense of those feelings, may be taken literally as presented to their consciousness, and not only taken literally by oneself, but should be adopted by others who may even be being moved by their own feelings and imaginings in other directions.

By saying “One wonders just how vast and gratuitous a catastrophe would have to be to shake the world’’s faith.” Harris shows that he doesn’t understand the well springs of faith nor does he seem understand the difference between faith and beliefs. Beliefs can be shaken and changed or given up. But faith is lost or found in a different context than belief. Faith is what leads a person to consider what is going on in life on the basis of birth and death. Faith is what leads a person to question catastrophes and their meaning for human life. If that questioning doesn’t lead to an experience of awakening, then it is the fault of beliefs getting in the way, not the faith.

For example, Harris says,”people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering.” That is erroneous. It is people of belief who assure one another that God is not responsible, because that is their belief. People of faith don’t have such assurances about God and their faith leads them to search while in the condition of not having any assurances. Belief creates assurances, faith opens the mind regardless of or in spite of the assurances of belief. People of faith experience what God’s responsibility means without any assurance that God will meet or satisfy their picture of the characteristics for God. Faith is why the mystics of all religions have no quarrels, belief is why the true believers have quarrels with other religions or with atheists.

The Biblical God is definitely a fiction, but it is a mythic fiction that arises from the inherent archetypes of the mind, including the dark, mysterious, and profound areas of the mind called the unconscious. Any atheist who thinks such a fiction can be taken off the air like a T.V. sit-com or drama knows nothing about the grip of the archetypes on the emotions and imaginings. Harris wants to reassure himself by saying “As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor” but that statement is simply not true as for “we all”. It is a flippant denial that presumes the God of Abraham is not Zeus or Thor. It doesn’t recognize the tremendous archetypal influence that the “father God” has even today though he goes by a different name in Christian, Jewish, or Islamic circles. Simply changing the name doesn’t make the God go away or make him into a different God. To paraphrase Jesus, to know a God you have to look beyond the name to the fruits, that is, to the function and activity the God takes in the realm of human dynamics and relationships.

Harris assumes that “The incompatibility of reason and faith has been a self-evident feature of human cognition and public discourse for centuries.” However, as Siddhartha Gautama Buddha demonstrated 2500 years ago in his explorations of human cognition, there is no fundamental incompatibility of reason and faith. The incompatibility is between reasonable and unreasonable beliefs, or diametrically opposed beliefs that both seem reasonable to their bearers. Harris confirms this by saying, “Either a person has good reasons for what he strongly believes or he does not.” Of course, Harris is the arbiter and judge for what is a “good reason.”

Harris correctly notes a dangers in the observation that “Religion is the one endeavor in which us-them thinking achieves a transcendent significance.” Still this confuses religion with transcendence. For example, the transcendent significance of nationalism and patriotism are ignored.

Essentially, Harris presumes that religion has either no reasons or bad reasons for its belief and atheism has all good reasons for its beliefs because he defines what is or is not reasonable to meet his criteria. This type of self-serving premise is unreasonable as it assumes the conclusion..

As stated earlier, in the social realm the conflicts between beliefs arise when someone believes their beliefs should be socially enforced on others. In other words, when someone doesn’t accept that pluralism is the reasonable basis for society. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, has said what makes clear sense to me: that in the social context, religion should be a personal affair and governing society should be on humanitarian pluralist grounds that do not oppress the individual’s religion. Here’s how he says it.

“Therefore, for the individual, the concept of one religion and one truth is very important. Without this, one cannot develop genuine faith and follow it faithfully. With regard to the community, we obviously need the concept of several religions and several truths — pluralism. This is both necessary and relevant. This is the way to overcome contradictions between several religions and several truths and one religion and one truth. Thus, I believe that one has one religion and one truth on the individual level, and one has several religions and several truths on the community level. Otherwise it is difficult to solve this problem.” (from Live in a Better Way by Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, pp. 132-133.)

The countries that Harris praises as least religious are in fact pluralistic societies that allow for the variety of the nonreligious as well as the religious, which reasonably accounts for their successes, rather than their being nonreligious countries.

Yes, I agree with Harris that “If we want to uproot the causes of religious violence we must uproot the false certainties of religion.” That is a logically circular argument. Likewise if we want to uproot the causes of violence having nothing to do with religion we must uproot the false certainties having nothing to do with religion. It is false certainties framed in us-them contexts of every kind, e.g., religious, tribal, ethnic, national, etc., that lead to violence, not religion per se which is only one arena where false certainties are the cloth that people wrap themselves within.

When someone comes to the door of your senses what false certainties do we have about them? Perhaps the certainty that they are an “other” is one that is false? Do we presume that God or Buddha will look like one thing or another and fulfill our expectations? If the knocker at the door doesn’t meet that picture do we reject God or Buddha? What if the greatest mistake we make as human beings is to presume with false certainty that God or Buddha is an object outside the door who comes knocking for a reason?

God or Buddha isn’t a person with characteristics to be identified like a suspect in a line up. Faith and reason are at home together when we don’t turn to an image of God or Buddha outside of ourselves by which to identify ourselves, but we turn to our mind to discover the identity of the one who is within the doors hearing the knocking.

The Difference Between Capitalism and Socialism.

Capitalism regulates greed.
Socialism prohibits greed.


The difference between capitalism and socialism is often, if not usually, presented in terms of ownership with the political and economic homilies that capitalism is private ownership (and thereby control) of the means of production and socialism is the state or collective ownership of the means of production. However, such rubrics do not address the real issues at the root of the capitalism-socialism debate such as the nature of greed and its place in human consciousness. By focusing on the status of ownership, the capitalists have succeeded in framing the debate in a manner that ensures its outcome in their favor.

The fundamental question about any society's economic system must address its relation to greed as a basic aspect of human consciousness. When I look at capitalism and socialism in this light it seems obvious that the basic goal of capitalism is to regulate greed while the aim of socialism is to prohibit greed.

Capitalism thus approves, authorizes, sanctions, and regulates greed in what it's proponents see as socially acceptable ways. Capitalism says that greed as a motivator is a social utility and without it there would be no "progress" in human development.

Socialism, on the other hand, views greed as fundamentally flawed and denies any inherent social utility of greed. Instead of merely regulating greed so that the greedy can have free competition to acquire as much as possible, socialism sees that the desire, attempt, and actions to acquire property beyond what is actually needed for health and comfort are all causes of a multitude of social problems, not the least of which is the basic fact that, when property is finite, the more one person has the less is available to others.

In Buddhism, greed is one of the three basic "poisons" of life, along with delusion and hate. Thus, if taken on the basis of doctrine alone, the outlook of Buddhism toward economics is basically socialist in orientation. However, such things are not quite so simple; since in Buddhism, as with all religions, there has been a distinct and inherent problem when the separation of religion and the state is lost and Buddhism becomes a supporter and rationalizer of the state rather than a teaching for the enlightening of people.

Like socialism, Buddhism teaches the renunciation of greed for its followers, but unlike socialism, Buddhism in itself does not seek to impose its beliefs on non-followers. This short essay is not intended to delve into the deep concerns of what has happened to the Buddha Dharma where it has sought some form of state sanction, but like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, it doesn't take much analytical ability to see that the basic tenets of the religion quickly become perverted when it conjoins with state power.

The obvious reason for this is that the desire for state power is itself a form of greed. Where socialism or Buddhism seeks state power beyond what is necessary, even for the "good intention" of prohibiting greed, then that desire too falls into greed. No state power, whether held in the hands of a king or emperor or in the arms of a political party, will give over that power selflessly. The only result of active collaboration with that state power will be a subtle co-optation into justifying and enhancing that power.

The highest ideals of socialism and Buddhism to overcome greed can themselves become perverted by the state powers-that-be when brought into the tent of power. The adage that power corrupts is true, especially when that power is based on the threat of violence for its enforcement (whether by police or the military). It is an oxymoron to have a Buddhist army, yet in history we have witnessed Buddhist monks, such as in Tibet and Japan, supporting nationalistic and military endeavors even to the extent of personally taking up weapons on the front lines.

Democracy, as the dispersal of power among a sovereign people, attempts to manage this problem of the power of power to corrupt. Unfortunately, political parties such as the Democrats and Republicans demonstrate how easily democracy can be undermined by vested interests becoming political intermediaries selling legislative favors much like the medieval Roman Church selling indulgences for the remission of sins. The two political parties who share control have brainwashed the citizens of the USA into believing that democracy and capitalism are synonymous. The reason for this is obvious: both parties are controlled by capitalists who pay for their political expenses and thus for their ability to secure political power.

The hope for human kind is to find a way to inform and educate the populace to individually renounce greed and then to democratically realize and manifest that personal renunciation in political forms and structures that prohibit greed in society using the most nonviolent forms of enforcement.

Returning to the theme of ownership, the central avenue for this change is the revisioning of the role of corporations in democratic societies. The corporation as originally conceived was a collective form of ownership that bridged the gap between private enterprise and public good works. The various original and historical restrictions on corporations up until the mid-nineteenth century all recognized this unique function of a collective ownership in society along with the concomitant unique hazards of such collectivization of wealth and power.

Since the time after the US Civil War, the people behind business corporations have succeeded in eroding every major limitation on corporate wealth and power and have used corporations as the economic vehicle to amass wealth and control society hiding the damaging corporate greed behind spin control and capitalis propaganda. Today, a corporation may engage in any capitalist business it desires without having to demonstrate, as in the past, that the purpose of the corporation is a benefit to society. Today, the people behind the business corporations use the corporations as vehicle of greed and the driving force behind the arms race at all levels, from large space based missile programs to small weapons manufacture and sale throughout the world. The giant transnational corporations prevent local democracy from limiting their power through the use of international monetary funds and bye supporting and equipping standing armies of intervention.

We can transform society by returning to the original limitations on corporations and requiring that corporate charters be given only for specifically recognized purposes that benefit the public and that no corporate licence will be extended to any organization that violates its charter's commitments.

This short presentation only scratches the surface of the deep interplay of economics and greed, but hopefully it will contribute to understanding and bring some small light on the process of greed in human consciousness as it manifests in social interactions.

Faith and Reason

The new PBS series “Bill Moyers on Faith and Reason,” consisting of seven programs of interviews with writers at a literary festival on faith and reason, is yet another great foray into enhanced human communication by Mr. Moyers. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/watch2.html

While, Mr. Moyers has created engaging and wonderful dialogues with interesting people, in the end I’m left unsatisfied by the discussion as it falls short of defining the terms it uses and simply relies on objectified consciousness rather than being an original and explorative inquiry into mind.

Last nights episode interviewing Mary Gordon and Colin McGinn demonstrated the problems with Mr. Moyers’ gentle approach that warmly embraces the interviewees and then fails to question their underlying assumptions and the premises of discussion. There is no radical attempt to get to the roots of their ideas.

For example, the segment interviewing Mary Gordon began with her saying the following:

“Without faith we would be paralyzed. We believe that all men are created equal. That our mothers, or at least our dogs, love us. That the number four bus will eventually come, all these represent a belief in the unseen. The question is not then are we people of faith, which we as a species seem to be. But rather, what then is the nature of that faith? And what actions does it lead to?”

Unfortunately, her statement uses the terms “faith” and “belief” interchangeably and completely confuses them. Mr. Moyers shares her confusion when he asks her, “Mary Gordon, as a Christian, did you feel out of place at a festival of writers so many of whom are not believers?” and said, “Agnostics and atheists however stand outside the frame of belief. They stand outside the language of belief. They stand outside the experience of belief.” Of course agnostics and atheists are “believers” in their agnosticism and atheism! To deny them their belief is exactly an expression of the kind of fundamentalism that Mr. Moyers is so passionately hoping to educate us against.

Using these terms belief and faith as if they are interchangeable is the large lacuna of the program so far. A program on Faith and Reason that fails to distinguish faith from belief doesn’t suggest that much reason is at play either.

Ms. Gordon quite clearly said, “the history of religion proves that religious people are no better than people who are not religious.” As a Buddhist, I accept that the history of Buddhism also confirms this truth. Yet there was not an adequate inquiry as to why this is. Other than a vague reference to the abuse of power by religious institutions the question of this very evocative point was dropped. I suggest that one important reason for this phenomenon is that as many religious people as non-religious people, as do Ms. Gordon and Mr. Moyers, fail to distinguish faith from belief. By confusing faith and belief, there is no clear awareness of why those in power in religious institutions fail to distinguish themselves from those in power nonreligious institutions.

Of course Mr. Moyers and Ms. Gordon are not to be faulted for failing to make the important distinction between belief and faith. The Western world view generally fails to do this. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary treats belief and faith as synonyms meaning to assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance, where belief is used without reference to the certitude in the believer and faith almost always implying certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. This clearly shows that the confusion is created by focusing on the certitude of the person and not on the nature of the truth that is being offered.

I posit that the distinction between belief and faith is exactly based on the nature of the truth being asserted or the question being asked. Belief is about objectified things; faith is inquiry beyond objectification. The items listed by Ms. Gordon, such as whether mothers and dogs love us, the number four bus is on time, or people are created equal, are all items taking things of the world as objects. None of these have anything to do with the basis of faith, which is an inquiry into the nature of the world and of our existence beyond that which determined by things, or that transcends things as objects.

Ms. Gordon showed an inkling of this distinction when she said, “I think there are two major narratives in the world, the narrative of fundamentalism and the narrative of consumerism.” Consumerism is the belief in things without faith, and fundamentalism is the mistaking of faith as a belief in things, such as believing that God is a thing or person. Ms. Gordon is quite right that these two polarities of world view narrative are in major conflict, today as they have ever been, but neither she nor Mr. Moyers seemed to be aware of the importance of this polarity, instead they seem to take this polarity itself as an objectified thing of belief instead as a gate into an inquiry of faith..

The Buddha teaching on Dharma is on point here. The term “dharma” has meanings that include both belief and faith. They are distinguished in the English language by using the word with or without a capital. Capital “D” Dharma means the Truth of the universe, the teaching of the One Mind, the awareness of awakening. The small “d” dharma means the things of the universe, the things of the personal mind, the objects of awareness. In this narrative, to use Ms. Gordon’s terminology, we have belief in dharmas and faith in Dharma. When we see the universe as things then we are seeing dharmas, and when we see the universe as the One Mind of Awakening then we are seeing Dharma.

The narratives of both fundamentalists and consumerists remain within the shared view of the universe as things and objects. This is why consumerism makes money, the valuation of things, into God while fundamentalists make God into a thing to be traded like currency saying, “My God has greater value than your God.” Neither fundamentalism nor consumerism has any faith, they are only expressions of their true believers.

Buddhist inquiry relies on three things: faith, doubt, and perseverance. Faith is the faith in the absolute unity of being; doubt is the question of this unity in the face of the appearance of disunity caused by the belief in things as they appear to be separate objects; perseverance is the undertaking to resolve this apparent dichotomy or polarization of faith and doubt derived from belief in spite of those counter influences, oppositions, or discouragements that are aroused once we are determined to make this journey.

In the Buddhist narrative, the holding of both faith and doubt together is the only reasonable approach to inquiry of the mind and of our fundamental nature. The fundamentalist denial of doubt in the name of belief has nothing to do with such a journey of inquiry. The certainty attained by denial of doubt and belief in God is not the same as the non-attained certainty that comes from awakening to the unified nature of Mind, God, and the Universe.

Without clarifying the difference between belief and faith, Ms. Gordon actually recognizes the essential connection of faith and doubt when she says, “The ability to question, the ability to take a skeptical position is absolutely central to my understanding of myself and my understanding of myself as a religious person. It's very important to experience doubt. I think faith without doubt is just either nostalgia or kind of addiction. And I'm not interested in that.”

Ms. Gordon’s personal inquiry which has included this connection between faith and doubt has apparently taken her past her own Church’s dogmatism of belief for she says, “And I think that I have to go back to a religious position, which is that if reading the Gospel means anything, if Jesus means anything, it's about seeing everybody, every human being as Jesus.” This is of course an awakening of faith to the unified nature of Mind, God, and the Universe. It may be liberal Catholicism, but it is not the belief of the Roman Catholic Church that holds Jesus Christ is God's one and only incarnation, being simultaneously Son of God and God. Seeing every human being as God’s one and only incarnation and simultaneously both a Child of God and God may be Ms. Gordon’s faith, but it is not the belief of the Church, and in another age she would have died like her hero Joan of Arc for expressing that faith.

This expresses quite clearly another difference between belief and faith. Belief, in its extremity, will kill for dominance, while faith will never do so because faith never objectifies truth as something that can be tarnished by false belief. For example, in the first program of Bill Moyer’s on Faith and Reason, Salman Rushdie asks, "What kind of a god is it that's upset by a cartoon in Danish?" It is not a God at all that is upset by such things, nor a mind of faith, but the mind of belief that reacts violently to such things.

In the Brahmajala Sutta, Buddha says that if people should disparage the Tathagata (a title of Buddha meaning “the one thus come”) faithful should not get upset, angry, or resentful, for such reactions are an obstruction and hindrance to them. Instead they should merely state in what way such disparaging remarks are incorrect. And likewise, if people should praise the Tathagata the faithful should not get smug, elated, or pleased because such reactions are also an obstruction to them. Instead they should merely state in what way such praise remarks are about what is correct.

These are the words of faith and reason.

The Three Poisons of OZ.

The Wizard of Oz and the Verse of Purification.
(Written 4/29/05)

Roshi John Tarrant’s Dharma Talk on Monday [ http://www.pacificzen.org/ ] on the Verse of Purification reverberated in my mind with the play of the Wizard of Oz I attended at my grandaughter's school last Saturday, becoming entangling vines in the Dharmaland.

Purification
All the ancient twisted karma
From beginningless greed, hatred and ignorance
Born of my body, mouth and thought
I now confess openly and fully.

Greed - Heartless - Tin Man - compassion - Avalokiteshvara
Hatred - Cowardly - Lion - action/practice - Samantabhadra
Ignorance - Brainless - Scarecrow - wisdom - Manjushri


We are usually taught that purification is a cleaning process where some object is purified such as wiping it down with bleach or having impurities removed. However, in one vehicle Buddhism the three poisons of greed, hatred, and ignorance are not treated as impurities which are simply removed or wiped off of the self in order to have a pure self. The verse says they are beginningless which also means they are endless. We can’t do away with them; we must seek any freedom from karma within their midst. No matter how much I think I won’t, I still get greedy for that cheesecake, I still get angry when someone slights me, I still say stupid things (just keep reading).

So what is happening in purification; what is the role of confession?

The confession that one’s karma is from beginningless greed, hatred, and ignorance is an awareness and acceptance of our human condition and is the prerequisite to purification. Confession is what cuts through our usual denial which surrounds and protects the imagination of an idealized self capable of achieving purity as a one-sided achievement. Once we confess, we begin the purification process, which is actually a transformation process in which greed, hatred, and ignorance are not disposed of but are made aware of their true nature. But to get there we have to start by acknowledging the greed, hatred, and ignorance that we actually experience and feel, not by pretending that we have overcome such feelings, suppressed them, or purified ourselves of them.

Greed is the orientation to life in the service of the rigid self. I think if I don’t get what I want that I will lose myself or be less than myself somehow. When we confess our greed we awake in the position of the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz. We see that we were frozen and we feel heartless. But that same awareness is what puts us on the yellow brick road to find our heart of compassion.

Hatred is the cowardly anger born of fear. Like the Cowardly Lion, hatred first comes off as growling and threatening. I bluster and try to win by intimidation. When we confess our hatred we open the awareness of the real feelings of fear that underlie it. We can then open up to the search for courage to face our fears and act in the world with real strength and seeing through the delusions of anger and hatred.

Ignorance is the feeling of limp stupidity and uselessness. I feel stuck on a pole imagining that the world is passing me by. I’m so lame that even the crows laugh at me and no one takes me seriously. Confessing our ignorance we awake like the Scarecrow conscious not only of feeling we don’t have a brain but also feeling the concomitant desire to unravel every riddle for every individual who is in trouble or in pain. This is the Bodhisattva’s vow which is the motive force that sets us on the yellow brick road, that charges our confession with the power toward purification.

In the transformative process of purification beginning with confession, our greed, hatred, and ignorance are not driven away but are accepted as they are, becoming our new friends with their own inner drive to discover themselves along with our discovery on our journey to find our home. As we see through our illusions of self and our grasping attachment, our greed learns that it has always had a heart but didn’t know it. Our hatred discovers its courage to live in the world without the habit of cowardly anger. Our ignorance learns that there was no need to go searching for wisdom elsewhere, since wisdom was inherent all along.

In the purification process, the cold metallic rigidity of the Tin Man without a heart becomes the flowing compassion of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara; the blustering growling anger of the Cowardly Lion becomes the courageous fearless action and practice of the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra facing every challenge in life; and the flopping flame fearing Scarecrow with straw for brains becomes the wielder of the flaming sword of wisdom Bodhisattva Manjushri.

But it is not that greed, hatred, and ignorance become something different in compassion, practice, and wisdom; it is that they were thus intrinsically, and we just didn’t know it. We could not see Avalokiteshvara, Samantabhadra, and Manjushri for what they are, and we saw them only as greed, hatred, and ignorance. When we see the self constructed from our twisted karma for what it is and stop trying to do away with beginingless greed, hatred, and ignorance, while confessing our lives even in the midst of them, then we can awaken to their true nature and our own.

Nader's Misfired Reference to US Propaganda

Ralph Nader's August 10, 2005, letter of support to the mother of slain US soldier Casey Sheehan refers to a speech by President Dwight D. Eisenchower. Cindy Sheehan is literally camped outside President Bush's ranch in Waco, Texas, (he calls it Crawford, Texas, to avoid the associations with Waco) trying to get an audience with the aloof Commander in Chief who ordered her son into a war on false premises. In his letter referring to Bush, Nader wrote: "Consider bringing to him a copy of President Dwight Eisenhower's famous 'Cross of Iron' speech, delivered in April 1953 before the nation's newspaper editors in Washington, D.C."

Ike's speech was officially titled "Chance for Peace," as it was both a response to the death of Josef Stalin on March 5, 1953, and one of Eisenhower’s first major foreign policy statements after being in office only three months. But because it contains the catchy Cold War line, "Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron," Ike's talk has become known as the "Cross of Iron" speech.

Nader’s reference to this speech is superficial at best, and in doing so he is playing to the pubic’s ignorance. Yes, the speech does outline the high ideals behind democratic governments and the hope for peace through participation in the UN. And the speech has catchy hymns to American decency and goodness. Here’s an example of the high minded humanitarian rhetoric:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.”

But does Nader really want us to believe that this American propaganda is to be taken seriously?

In this speech composed completely of mere rhetoric, Ike had the audacity to say, “We welcome every honest act of peace. We care nothing for mere rhetoric.” The Soviets could have said the same just as straight faced.

Elsewhere I have pointed out that Eisenhower was a moderate Republican of the old conservative school who did hold certain plain ideals to his credit, and I think he really believed that the American people should not have certain right-wing ideological positions shoved down their throats, even though he did not go very far at all in fighting for the ideals he enunciated. As a military man he followed orders to the utmost, but not going one step beyond his orders. As a politician he was a man of compromise all the way. For example, I believe as a man Ike would be very aghast at today’s Republicans, but as a Republican politician he would most likely accept the compromise like any moderate Republican today, and would not publically criticize his fellow Republicans. And of course, while Ike would not want his fellow Americans to have ideas shoved down their throats, Ike had no compunctions against shoving ideas down non-American throats.

So basically, I think Nader’s citing of this speech is unfairly and misleadingly ignoring the cold war doctrines that are embedded in the speech itself. Eisenhower presented the simplistic Cold War formula: the USA is good and the Soviet Union is bad. Ike said the Soviet Union’s “goal was power superiority at all costs.” Ike said the Soviet Union was responsible for the Arms Race, not the USA which was just acting defensively! That, we know, is a crock of crap.

So just because Eisenhower and Bush have some few differences in their approaches to how a president should deal with his enemies, the fact remains that Eisenhower in this speech is mouthing platitudes of political propaganda that should not be taken seriously. In fact if you read the “Chance for Peace (Cross of Iron)” speech I think that you will come to the same conclusion as I did, that it is a speech right out of the same play-book that Bush uses today when he mouths his platitudes saying the USA is bringing freedom to nations in a war on terrorism and that Iran and Korea, and whomever is expedient that day, are nations of evil.

While Ike was telling the world on April 16, 1953, about the peaceful and democratic intentions of the USA, what was the USA doing in the world? The McCarthy hearings were going strong and Ike was silent. On January 7 1953, as one of his last acts in office, President Harry S. Truman announced the US had developed a hydrogen bomb. On February 11, 1953, Ike in one of his first official acts refused the clemency appeal for Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. (Wouldn’t that have been a real show of peace and not mere rhetoric?) On May 25, at the Nevada Test Site, the US conducted a nuclear artillery test. The US was neck deep in the Korean War which wouldn’t end until July 27 with a stalemate cease-fire. On August 19 the CIA overthrew the government of Iran and installed the Shah. Also in August 1953 Ike authorized the CIA’s top secret covert operation “PBSUCCESS” with its $2.7 million budget for "psychological warfare and political action" and "subversion," among the other components of a small paramilitary war in Guatemala to overthrow its democratically elected president. So much for Ike’s “Cross of Iron” rhetoric saying “Any nation's right to a form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.” Then by April 1954 Eisenhower would give his famous “domino theory” speech.

I think Nader has made a mistake with this reference. It is one thing to refer to Ike’s personal letters to show how the man privately felt to give some insight into how he acted publically, but it is another thing to be fooled, like Nader seems to be, into suggesting that the propaganda pronouncements of Ike then should be taken any more seriously than the propaganda pronouncements of Bush today. In other words, one doesn’t have to tell Bush to live up to Ike’s speeches, one only has to tell Bush to live up to his own speeches.

Here are some links to interesting info on this speech from the Eisenhower archives.

First, the speech may be read at several websites such as
https://ideotrope.org/index.pl?node_id=23495

And both the text and an mp3 audio file are at
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/eisenhower/

The speech was given on April 16, 1953, and at the Eisenhower archives there are communications between Churchill and Ike a few days before the speech.

On April 6, 1953, Ike wrote to Churchill: “I am considering the delivery of a formal speech, with the purpose of setting concretely before the world the peaceful intentions of this country. I would hope to do this in such a way as to delineate, at least in outline, the specific steps or measures that we believe necessary to bring about satisfactory relationships with resultant elimination or lowering of tensions throughout the world. These steps are none other than what our governments have sought in the past. I have been working on such a talk for some days and will soon be in a position to show it to your Ambassador, who will of course communicate with you concerning it. While I do not presume to speak for any government other than our own, it would be useless for me to say anything publicly unless I could feel that our principal allies are in general accord with what I will have to say. I am particularly anxious that this be true of Britain, and I think it also necessary to check with France and, as regards Germany, with Adenauer who arrives here tomorrow.”
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/132.cfm

When the Ambassador showed Churchill a draft of the speech, it turns out that Churchill thought the speech a little too harsh with its cold war rhetoric and wanted Ike to make it more hopeful. Churchill had been telling Ike that he believed the Soviets were ready for a thaw in relations and wanted Ike to show some hope..

Churchill wrote on April 11, 1953: "It would be a pity if a sudden frost nipped spring in the bud or if this could be alleged even if there was no real spring." He asked whether Eisenhower might combine restatements of resolve "with some balancing expression of hope that we have entered upon a new era. A new hope has I feel been created in the unhappy bewildered world"

Ike replied on April 13, 1953: “Dear Winston: Thank you very much for your prompt reply to my cablegram. I agree with the tenor of your comments and shall certainly strive to make my talk one that will not freeze the tender buds of sprouting decency if indeed they are really coming out.”
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/146.cfm

Of course Ike didn't appear to strive very hard not to freeze tender buds, since his speech did not do anything but severely criticize the Soviet Union all the while boasting of our own human decency, while at the same time, as stated above, Ike was planning the overthrow of governments throughout the globe from Iran to Guatemala. While lambasting the USSR as an imperialist nation, the USA was also engaging in imperialist conquest through overthrowing govenments and creating vassel nation-states.

#

Killing the Wrong Man for the Wrong Reason

The BBC reports July 25, 2005:

"Police leaders say they will not abandon their 'shoot-to-kill' policy and warn more innocent people could be killed in the fight against terrorism.
"The message came after Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by officers after being mistaken for a suicide bomber."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713199.stm

*******

I hope we get good reporting on this. The police want us to believe this was a case of killing the wrong man for the right reason. Actually this is a case of killing the wrong man for the wrong reason.

Of course the police version is self-serving, and they presume their own justified conclusions that the shooting was necessary without even acknowledging that their presumption of necessity is what is being called into question.

So far the police say there are witnesses who saw the man jump over the turnstile and run toward the train without stopping when police called. To the police that justifies shooting him as a terrorist threat, because if he was wearing a bomb vest it would give him time to detonate it if they tried to negotiate.

To me that is not justification, it is rationalization. The behavior of a suicide terrorist is not to jump the turnstile and run for the train thereby calling attention to himself. He was probably late and running to get to the train and was so focused on making the open door of the train that the police shouting at him became just background noise of the station. A real terrorist walks slowly with the flow of foot traffic through the underground and maintains an air of normality. Real terrorists don't want attention. The police should have recognized that from the evidence of how the actual terrorists appeared on the closed circuit TV that the police have been reviewing.

It is the lack of training of police that is mostly responsible for this murder, as well as the legitimization of the reactionary terrorism of the anti-terrorism world-view. This is why the BBC reports, "Police leaders say they will not abandon their 'shoot-to-kill' policy and warn more innocent people could be killed in the fight against terrorism."

By warning people that excited movements may get a person killed the police are making a mockery of anti-terrorism efforts. The police are just cultivating the "1984" mentality of propaganda for a passive society.

The police say, "The important thing is there's nothing gratuitous going on, there is nothing cavalier here, there is no conspiracy to shoot people." Here, the police erect the straw-man argument. Of course there is no allegation of a conspiracy to shoot people. The allegation is a conspiracy to make the population accept being shot if they act "strange" in the eyes of the police. This acceptance lets the police out of all responsibility for these types of murders.

Eisenhower's Social Security Quote.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The above quote by Dwight Eisenhower about social security is spreading like wildfire across the internet. The quote is basically correct (though it has an undisclosed ellipse omitting the reference to H.L. Hunt), but the date given is 1952.

Blanche Wiesen Cook, a "Distinguished Professor of History" at John Jay College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, author of Eleanor Roosevelt: Volume One: 1884-1933, Crystal Eastman on Women and Revolution and The Declassified Eisenhower, and a former vice-president for research at the American Historical Association, wrote that the letter with the Eisenhower quote about social security was dated "2 May l956". http://buffaloreport.com/2004/041124.cook.liberals.html

Actually, both the 1952 and the 1956 dates are incorrect. The correct date is November 8, 1954. The source of the quote is in the Eisenhower Papers on line. It is from a personal and confidential letter from Ike to his brother Edgar Newton Eisenhower. Since the letter was personal and confidential to Ike's very close brother (the one who slept by his bedside to prevent the doctors from amputating Ike's leg when he has blood poisoning) with whom he often debated his comments were not guarded as they were for public dissemination.

Here's the whole paragraph:

"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon 'moderation' in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

From The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XV - The Presidency: The Middle Way
Part VI: Crises Abroad, Party Problems at Home; September 1954 to December 1954
Chapter 13: "A new phase of political experience"
Document #1147; November 8, 1954
To Edgar Newton Eisenhower
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential%2Dpapers/first%2Dterm/documents/1147.cfm

Actually the whole letter is very interesting reading as it shows Ike's responses to Edgar who is shown to be an ultra conservative chiding Ike with the typical inaccuracies and "ignorance" (Ike's word) that such conservatives commonly use.

Ike did write a letter to his brother Edgar on May 2, 1956, and it contains this observation on the conservative Edgar's ability to perceive political events accurately.

"I am interested in your statement, 'I do think and have said so to you, that the Government is rapidly drifting into a socialistic state.' A statement such as this seems indication to me that you are not studying the march of events with as clear an eye as you should; you are talking from impressions and prejudices without giving the important factors serious examination."

Ike responded to the requests that he stop the US treend toward socialism by saying in part, "Neither I nor anyone else can bring about the abandonment of projects supported by the government that are generally believed to help the social or economic welfare of vast portions of our population."

And to Edgar's comments to the press about being a "real Republican" Ike said:

"I am a little amused about this word 'real' that in your clipping modifies the word 'Republican.' I assume that Lincoln was a real Republican--in fact, I think we should have to assume that every President, being the elected leader of the Party, is a real Republican. Therefore, the President's branch of the Party requires, for its description, no adjective whatsoever. I should think that the splinter groups, which oppose the leader, would be the ones requiring the descriptive adjectives. In any event, please look up sometime what Lincoln had to say about the proper functions of government."

Footnote #9 to the Lincoln reference says, "Lincoln had written that the object of government was to do for people what needed to be done, but which they could not, by individual effort, do at all or do so well. 'There are many such things--some of them exist independently of the injustice in the world. Making and maintaining roads, bridges, and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools; and disposing of deceased men's property, are instances' (Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, 8 vols. [New Brunswick, N. J., 1953], vol. II, 1848-1858, p. 221)."

The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XVII - The Presidency: The Middle Way
Part X: Cracks in the Alliance; May 1956 to September 1956
Chapter 20: Confronting "great risks"
Document #1861; May 2, 1956
To Edgar Newton Eisenhower
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential%2Dpapers/first%2Dterm/documents/1861.cfm

Why Greens Should Oppose “Progressive” Democrats

-

"Then in January, a brave minority of Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, advocated a timetable for withdrawal. Their concerns were quickly deflated by the party leadership." -- Tom Hayden

Tom Hayden's letter (posted below) is the perfect example of why I support Greens opposing any Democrat in any district no matter how progressive the individual Democratic candidate is as a person. Why? Because I think the "progressive" Democratic candidate has to be shamed into admitting where they stand in the party and stop deluding the public in the progressive districts that the Democrats are not a party controlled by the corporations.

In fact, The Nation's editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, is dead wrong when she says that Hayden's letter is "an eloquent and important document," because Hayden's letter is itself a continuation of the delusion that the Democratic Party can change, when in fact the party leadership will never change and will forever hold progressives in such contempt. Beseeching Howard Dean to change -- now that Dean has become a party leader himself -- is an exercise of pure futility. Hayden should be ashamed for his last year's support of Kerry, why does he continue to grovel in shame before Dean now? Hayden’s letter would be eloquent and important if he was saying goodbye to the Democratic Party exposing the make-believe they are perpetrating on the voters.

I'm in Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's district and she has one of the most liberal/progressive voting records in the nation. I know that Greens here are afraid to run against her. But she deserves to be shamed into really admitting how weak she and the progressive caucus is within the Democratic Party. Just because at one time she was a welfare mother and is a woman and votes well on many if not most issues, she still needs to be shamed for being in the same party where the party policy supports the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, NAFTA, the new bankruptcy bill, etc.

The big picture is that she votes well on most issues because there are not very many big issues to vote on that rock the system, when most issues are disagreements over very narrow differences like raising the minimum wage zero cents, fifteen cents, or fifty cents, instead of looking at the whole system differently (such as a living wage or even making a ceiling on wages).

It should go without saying that the challenge has to be realistic and not take the juvenile Peter Camejo approach by saying that there are no differences between Repubs and Demos. I once saw a list of issues showing the positions of Republicans, Democrats, and Greens which was good at showing the Democrats true colors as a party: where they agreed with Greens and where they agreed with Republicans. (If anyone has a list like this please send me the link.) Progressive Democrats should be challenged on the basis that they are running against their own party and therefore are actually conning the public about what it means to be a Democrat.

When it comes to challenging the so-called liberal or progressive Democrats like Woolsey or Kennedy or Kucinich we need to emphasize how they are in the same party with those who supported all the negative positions that the Demos take. We have to expose the notion that Demos are a liberal party for the illusion it is, fostered by these very same ineffectual liberal Democrats. That is my definition of winning in a race challenging a progressive Democrat. If Greens can get enough Progressives to vote Green then even if the Republican wins the
election the Greens will have won the truth.

It is better for the emotional and intellectual health of the public to know what the political parties stand for rather than to live in delusion. It would be far better to have "ineffectual" Greens in
Congress as minority opposition voices for a political viewpoint that is known, compared to ineffectual Demos like Kennedy and Woolsey and Kucinich who perpetuate the delusions about the Democratic Party which actually has no political viewpoint.

Frankly, we have to find an effective way to communicate to people how it feels better as a person to live without delusions as a member of a "powerless" minority party and supporting politics based on humanitarian values than to live as a member of a delusional party which shares power based on corporate values, wealth maintenance, nationalism, and neo-fascism. It does for me, doesn't it for you? If so, then let your people know. And running against a progressive candidate with that simple message is "winning", no matter what the vote outcome, because I'm looking at the 100-year plan, not the one-year plan or the 10-year plan.

Greens have to get up in the campaign faces of progressive Democrats on the same stages and in the same debates with them with candidates who will say to them in front of an audience, "How can you stand there and pretend to be a progressive when the party you belong to does .......?" We have to inform the public in such campaigns that their so-called progressive Democrat is simply keeping them in the delusion that voting for a progressive Democrat in that district will change the Democratic Party.

As dangerous as it could be for all of us, I think the last two elections have proven that it will be better in the long run to simply kill the Democratic Party with the truth that it is a con game on the people, even if it means that Republicans will win in the short term. If the "progressive" Democrats in Congress stopped being Democrats (or even lost their seats) then the Democrats who remain in the party would be pretty hard to tell from Republicans. That would be a win too.

Gregory Wonderwheel

**************************
The following is from
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0429-23.htm

Published on Friday, April 29, 2005 by The Nation
Open Letter to Howard Dean
by Katrina vanden Heuvel

"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center on April 20th. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the US where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."

I agree with Dean--a political figure I admire-- that the war in Iraq has put the US in greater danger. But the question facing us today is who will speak for the millions of Americans who believe that continued occupation increases the danger? Who will speak for the millions who believe that the US has gotten bogged down in Iraq? Who will speak out against the (majority of the) Democratic Party's silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq war policies? Who will speak out about the wrenching human and economic costs of occupation? Who will speak out in support of a clear and honorable exit strategy? Who will make a clear, unequivocal declaration that the US will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq?

For those who believe that America needs to change course, Tom Hayden's open letter to Howard Dean appealing to him not to take the antiwar majority of the Democratic Party for granted is an eloquent and important document. Read it, share it. - Katrina vanden Heuvel


April 26, 2005

Dear Chairman Dean,

Thank you kindly for your call and your expressed willingness to discuss the Democratic Party's position on the Iraq War. There is growing frustration at the grass roots towards the party leadership's silent collaboration with the Bush Administration's policies. Personally, I cannot remember a time in thirty years when I have been more despairing over the party's moral default. Let me take this opportunity to explain.

The party's alliance with the progressive left, so carefully repaired after the catastrophic split of 2000, is again beginning to unravel over Iraq. Thousands of anti-war activists and millions of antiwar voters gave their time, their loyalty and their dollars to the 2004 presidential campaign despite profound misgivings about our candidate's position on the Iraq War. Of the millions spent by "527" committees on voter awareness, none was spent on criticizing the Bush policies in Iraq.

The Democratic candidate, and other party leaders, even endorsed the US invasion of Falluja, giving President Bush a green-light to destroy that city with immunity from domestic criticism. As a result, a majority of Falluja's residents were displaced violently, guaranteeing a Sunni abstention from the subsequent Iraqi elections.

Then in January, a brave minority of Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, advocated a timetable for withdrawal. Their concerns were quickly deflated by the party leadership.

Next came the Iraqi elections, in which a majority of Iraqis supported a platform calling for a timetable for US withdrawal. ("US Intelligence Says Iraqis Will Press for Withdrawal." New York Times, Jan. 18, 2005) A January 2005 poll showed that 82 percent of Sunnis and 69 percent of Shiites favored a "near-term US withdrawal" (New York Times, Feb. 21, 2005. The Democrats failed to capitalize on this peace sentiment, as if it were a threat rather than an opportunity.

Three weeks ago, tens of thousands of Shiites demonstrated in Baghdad calling again for US withdrawal, chanting "No America, No Saddam." (New York Times, April 10, 2005) The Democrats ignored this massive nonviolent protest.

There is evidence that the Bush Administration, along with its clients in Baghdad, is ignoring or suppressing forces within the Iraqi coalition calling for peace talks with the resistance. The Democrats are silent towards this meddling.

On April 12, Donald Rumsfeld declared "we don't really have an exit strategy. We have a victory strategy." (New York Times, April 13, 2005). There was no Democratic response.

The new Iraqi regime, lacking any inclusion of Sunnis or critics of our occupation, is being pressured to invite the US troops to stay. The new government has been floundering for three months, hopelessly unable to provide security or services to the Iraqi people. Its security forces are under constant siege by the resistance. The Democrats do nothing.

A unanimous Senate, including all Democrats, supports another $80-plus billion for this interminable conflict. This is a retreat even from the 2004 presidential campaign when candidate John Kerry at least voted against the supplemental funding to attract Democratic voters.

The Democratic Party's present collaboration with the Bush Iraq policies is not only immoral but threatens to tear apart the alliance built with antiwar Democrats, Greens, and independents in 2004. The vast majority of these voters returned to the Democratic Party after their disastrous decision to vote for Ralph Nader four years before. But the Democrats' pro-war policies threaten to deeply splinter the party once again.

We all supported and celebrated your election as Party chairman, hoping that winds of change would blow away what former president Bill Clinton once called "brain-dead thinking."

But it seems to me that your recent comments about Iraq require further reflection and reconsideration if we are to keep the loyalty of progressives and promote a meaningful alternative that resonates with mainstream American voters.

Let me tell you where I stand personally. I do not believe the Iraq War is worth another drop of blood, another dollar of taxpayer subsidy, another stain on our honor. Our occupation is the chief cause of the nationalist resistance in that country. We should end the war and foreign economic occupation. Period.

To those Democrats in search of a muscular, manly foreign policy, let me say that real men (and real patriots) do not sacrifice young lives for their own mistakes, throw good money after bad, or protect the political reputations of high officials at the expense of their nation's moral reputation.

At the same time, I understand that there are limitations on what a divided political party can propose, and that there are internal pressures from hawkish Democratic interest groups. I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party has to support language favoring "out now" or "isolation." What I am arguing is that the Democratic Party must end its silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq War policies and stand for a negotiated end to the occupation and our military presence. The Party should seize on Secretary Rumsfeld's recent comments to argue that the Republicans have never had an "exit strategy" because they have always wanted a permanent military outpost in the Middle East, whatever the cost.

The Bush Administration deliberately conceals the numbers of American dead in the Iraq War. Rather than the 1,500 publicly acknowledged, the real number is closer to 2,000 when private contractors are counted.

The Iraq War costs one billion dollars in taxpayer funds every week. In "red" states like Missouri, the taxpayer subsidy for the Iraq War could support nearly 200,000 four-year university scholarships.

Military morale is declining swiftly. Prevented by antiwar opinion from re-instituting the military draft, the Bush Administration is forced to intensify the pressures on our existing forces. Already forty percent of those troops are drawn from the National Guard or reservists. Recruitment has fallen below its quotas, and 37 military recruiters are among the 6,000 soldiers who are AWOL.

President Bush's "coalition of the willing" is steadily weakening, down from 34 countries to approximately twenty. Our international reputation has become that of a torturer, a bully.

The anti-war movement must lead and hopefully, the Democratic Party will follow. But there is much the Democratic Party can do:


First, stop marginalizing those Democrats who are calling for immediate withdrawal or a one-year timetable. Encourage pubic hearings in Congressional districts on the ongoing costs of war and occupation, with comparisons to alternative spending priorities for the one billion dollars per week.

Second, call for peace talks between Iraqi political parties and the Iraqi resistance. Hold hearings demand to know why the Bush Administration is trying to squash any such Iraqi peace initiatives. (Bush Administration officials are hoping the new Iraqi government will "settle for a schedule based on the military situation, not the calendar." New York Times, Jan. 19, 2005).

Third, as an incentive to those Iraqi peace initiatives, the US needs to offer to end the occupation and withdraw our troops by a near-term date. The Bush policy, supported by the Democrats, is to train and arm Iraqis to fight Iraqis--a civil war with fewer American casualties.

Fourth, to further promote peace initiatives, the US needs to specify that a multi-billion dollar peace dividend will be earmarked for Iraqi-led reconstruction, not for the Halliburtons and Bechtels, without discrimination as to Iraqi political allegiances.

Fifth, Democrats could unite behind Senator Rockefellers's persistent calls for public hearings on responsibility for the torture scandals. If Republicans refuse to permit such hearings, Democrats should hold them independently. "No taxes for torture" is a demand most Democrats should be able to support. The Democratic Senate unity against the Bolton appointment is a bright but isolated example of how public hearings can keep media and public attention focused on the fabricated reasons for going to war.


Instead of such initiatives, the national Democratic Party is either committed to the Iraq War, or to avoiding blame for losing the Iraq War, at the expense of the social programs for which it historically stands. The Democrats' stance on the war cannot be separated from the Democrats' stance on health care, social security, inner city investment, and education, all programs gradually being defunded by a war which costs $100 billion yearly, billed to future generations.

This is a familiar pattern for those of us who suffered through the Vietnam War. Today it is conventional wisdom among Washington insiders, including even the liberal media, that the Democratic Party must distance itself from its antiwar past, and must embrace a position of military toughness.

The truth is quite the opposite. What the Democratic Party should distance itself from is its immoral and self-destructive pro-war positions in the 1960s which led to unprecedented polarization, the collapse of funds for the War on Poverty, a schism in the presidential primaries, and the destruction of the Lyndon Johnson presidency. Thirty years after our forced withdrawal from Vietnam, the US government has stable diplomatic and commercial relations with its former Communist enemy. The same future is possible in Iraq.

I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, not to take the anti-war majority of this Party for granted. May I suggest that you initiate a serious reappraisal of how the Democratic Party has become trapped in the illusions which you yourself questioned so cogently when you ran for president. I believe that an immediate commencement of dialogue is necessary to fix the credibility gap in the Party's position on the Iraq War. Surely if the war was a mistake based on a fabrication, there is a better approach than simply becoming accessories to the perpetrators of the deceit. And surely there is a greater role for Party leadership than permanently squandering the immense good will, grass roots funding, and new volunteer energy that was generated by your visionary campaign.

Tom Hayden