OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

There is already legislation before Congress for a Department of Peace - H.R. 808. However, the tax of war contracts to pay for it is very creative! H.R. 808 includes a very large percentage of support for reducing violence domestically, as well. In any case, this is a fantastic idea whose time has come.

A Department of Peace would, according to current legislation H.R. 808, support and expand programs that address violence at the root cause domestically as well, as Ted mentioned.

According to the World Health Organization, we're spending $300 Billion annually on the costs of interpersonal violence, excluding the cost of war. There are hundreds of effective, strategic and proven programs that ameliorate the effects of violence, and work to prevent it -- that cost pennies on the dollar compared to reacting to the violence after it occurs, which is our pattern.

We need a Department of Peace to set the intention in our country to proactively create and build a safer, more secure and peaceful society in which to live, for future generations.

We live in an unnecessarily violent culture, where the gospel of "might makes right" prevails in personal and national decisions. The existing government structures must be changed if we are ever going to reverse this tendency. The Department of Peace idea is a good place to start.

There will be no peace until the truth about 9-11 is known by the people. The phony war on terror; bombing and torturing civilians so as to CREATE terrorists; thus fueling the Neocons' permanent war... that's the game, and nothing has changed under Obama. He still, it seems, works for the military industrial complex. It is only through 9-11 truth that the righteous anger of the world will sweep the war criminals into irons and set things right. And for anyone who still doesn't believe 9-11 was a false flag attack, please visit www.ae911truth.org -- Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth, who prove conclusively and with o% doubt that the three World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives.

Merely the fact that the US has or will have a Department of Peace will show in of itself that we are open to choosing peaceful resolves. In additon to its use in foreign affairs it will create a network for peaceful resolve domestically as well. Anyone with a heart and some intelligence will understand for this branch of government to exist and soon it will. Keep the faith. It will happen and it will happen soon, and peace will follow.

Take care. Peace,

Jason Frost

Chairman Board Rock4xmas.com Charity Foundation

Creative Director

A&R Manager and Music Licensing Director

A Frosty J Productions (ASCAP) - http://FrostyJ.com

- On Myspace Company Page - http://Myspace.com/FrostyJ

"Keep Cool and Stay Frosty"

As a Christian, I believe creating a Department of Peace and Nonviolence would be an excellent idea. It would help our country rely less on violence and lead to a more just and peaceful world.

The time has come, let's go for it.

Having the federal government assist in the struggle many communities are having to reduce violence is a stellar idea! Many local governments have no idea what to do, and no funds to put preventive programs into action. The Department of Peace will help.

We have an unique opportunity to take a stand for peace from the top down. Our President has the power to lead our people away from aggression and violence. As someone else said, the time has come. We mothers of the world are sick and tired of watching our husbands and sons and daughters be slaughtered. As Stevie Wonder says it's "A Time For Love".

The federal bill "HR-808 to create a United States Department of Peace" was recently voted as one of the top 10 IDEAS FOR CHANGE IN AMERICA. It was presented to the President Obama transition team a few days before the inauguration. The people have spoken. It's time to Act. The public supports a different approach to reducing violence in America.

See www.Change.org/Ideas

A department of Peace would save money and lives.

Businesses know that until you assign responsibility for a certain discipline, no one will own it.

By creating a department of Peace, we tell the nation and the world what America is really all about

GREAT point Jenny! That's the bottom line here President Obama.

Peace is an idea whose time has come. We are at the beginning of a new, more expansive, open-minded and compassionate theme in government. Most countries, certainly first-world ones, have some form of a Department of Peace. It is time that we show the rest of the world that we demand, respect and desire peace for our world, for our children and for generations to come.

The Department of War (changed to Defense) has had the President's ear for years. Now it's time to make Peace the important concept for the world.

Lisa, well said! It is only when we assume the responsibility will we actually walk the talk. The Department of Peace will provide the format.

Thank you Ana for spreading the word. I now have a glimmer of hope that it's possible to restore our nations integrity.

Thank you Valerie for voting and showing your support and sharing the link! Not to get to off topic, but I must share http://www.change.org/ideas

As you can see over 18,000 people stated they want a United States Department of Peace. The tide has turned and President Obama has the opportunity to make this happen. The movement is growing and growing.

See http://www.ThePeaceAlliance.org too

DEAR JOJARRETT -

WOULD YOU PLEASE EMAIL ME AT

ACAMPOS _2001 at YAHOO dot COM

THANKS

Since we have an entire branch of the government devoted to WAR - and since the State department represents looking out for the economic interests of the corporations of this country ... it only makes sense to have One Little Seat in the Cabinet devoted to PEACE.

War has been very good business for American corporations, but not very good for the people of the world. This waring mentality is reflected in our entertainment media and violence in our society. It effects the youngest among us in our schools. By providing a counter-weight to this industry, the Dept of Peace would create a conscious shift in how we view ourselves and the world around us.

Best idea yet that I've seen on this site. I would fully support a Department of Peace in any country of the world. However, the US and its citizens must make sure that after the creation of such a department it does not quickly disintegrate into a defunct institution paying lip service to ideals. It should be fully funded and its activities adequately and regularly publicised to the public.

Ending the culture of violence that our children are being subjected to must be a top priority for the world to survive. To do this we need the centers of power to have structural access to ideas and resources for peaceful solutions to problems like war, family violence, and bullying.

An US Dept of Peace and Nonviolence will be a big start.

Hi. This is yoko ono.

I fully support the idea of voting for a DEPARTMENT OF PEACE.

Every bit helps to make World Peace a reality.

Lots of love, yoko

Yoko,

Thank you for always doing something. I value and appreciate you.

Ana

The Department of Defense is by its very nature a Department of Peace. We keep the peace with superior firepower and then not having to use it. As evidenced by the first 4 months of this new administration, weak national defense leads to more international conflict (N. Korea moving forward with nuclear testing).

"Achieve peace through superior firepower." - Ronald Reagan

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick." - Teddy Roosevelt

schuko - "Peace" achieved through violence provides a temporary and false sense of security for the victor. The vanquicshed will always hold a grudge and will always be looking for a way to get even. You have to look no further than the events of 9/11 to know that the world's only military superpower was not able to prevent it.

Peace achieved through nonviolence, as would be the case with the Department of Peace, would be long-lasting and appy to all parties in the conflict. Given the potential saving in treasure and lives through peaceful resolution of conflict, the DOP is certainly worth trying.

The DOD will always be a useful tool in those situations where nonviolent means are not successful. We need both approaches.

“The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend.” - Abraham Lincoln

YEA, Great Idea . . . Add a tax to defence contractors products so they now have an excuse to increase the cost to the Government to give the government a reason to raise taxes on We The People so they can fund an expansion of a useless bureaucratic agency.

Wow, I wish I could have thought of that . . .

The Department of Defense is what has allowed us to have even the concept of Peace within our nation.

George Orwell's 1984. Enough said if you are literate

Jwelborn3434 said:

"George Orwell's 1984. Enough said if you are literate."

This overly simplistic response to the Department of Peace proposal indicates to me that you have not fully considered the need for reform in our government to place greater emphasis on nonviolence in resolving conflict issues, both domestically and internationally. The current legislation - H.R. 808 - contains many practical approaches based proven programs. I encourage literate people to read the legislation to get an idea of the positive impact this department will have on the lives of all Americans.

That said, if the Department of Peace is not something you can support, jwelborn3434, what alternative methods would you propose for reducing violence? Keep in mind that current approaches are not working.

Teaching "non-violence" creates helpless victims. We would get better progress by teaching responsible and controlled application of force.

Here is the model I use in my personal life. Please tell me why we could not apply it to foreign policy:

I express my opinions and offer advise when invited but I do not force anyone to agree with me. I help others when I see that it is wanted and useful. When my help receives ingratitude, resentment, or entitlement in response, I withdraw it.

While doing all of the above, I also train my body and mind in the effective use of force. If I am attacked, I am prepared to effectively use whatever level of force is necessary to stop that attack. Physical and mental training create noticeable changes in a person. Those who seek to victimize others see these signs and stay away.

Because I am prepared to use precisely controlled violence in my own defense, I do not get attacked in the first place.

Bringing martial arts training into the curriculum in public schools would be a good start.

jwelborn3434 said:

Teaching "non-violence" creates helpless victims. We would get better progress by teaching responsible and controlled application of force.

Non-violence IS a very good way of learning how to make responsible and controlled application of force. This can't make no one helpless.

Here is the model I use in my personal life. Please tell me why we could not apply it to foreign policy (...).

Well, once again jwelborn3434 you are way too simplistic. Narcisistic delusional tecniques aren't to be used to shape individuals' lives, even less the ones of entire peoples sice reality is more complex than it seems to fit in your mind. No offence intended.

Please elaborate. Are you implying that my opinions are narcissistic and delusional or that martial arts programs teach narcissistic and delusional attitudes?

Erie. Has anyone read George Orwell's 1984? This is a move right out of that novel. It reeks of propaganda.

A department of Peace is redundant. America maintained an isolationist posture for decades with no such department, indeed, with only a fraction of the government we have today.

Who wants war anyway? There are definitely some things worth fighting for, as Americans have done for centuries, but noone wants war for war's sake. Some tyrants do not understand anything but the bayonet or the missile.

A department of peace would not have prevented WWI or II. It just adds another wasteful batch of bureaucracy to an already burgeoning federal government.

For those of you who might be interested in fully reading the federal bill here's a link.

http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/84/111/

The United States, and the world in general, need peace now more than ever. Can Obama bring it about, perhaps not, but he can try.

Steven.

Definitely an idea whose time has come. Language is the way we shape our world. Rename Homeland Security to Dept of Peace, no need to create new government branch and add payroll. Simply reinvent what we already have with more fitting and inspiring language.

A Department of Defense basically serves to create and treat the "symptoms" of violence and war. The term "defense" assumes violence.

A Department of Peace can "proactively" work to prevent the symptoms of violence altogether.

This all brings to mind the Vietnam era anti-war slogan:

"What if they gave a war and nobody came."

I agree that peace is a wonderful thing. However, teaching our children that it is never acceptable to use violence even in response to violent attack created guarantied victims.

Have you not notice that mass shooting tend to occur in "zero tolerance for weapons" areas? Predators will always seek out the prey least able to defend itself.

to jwelborn3434....

no, in fact, i have never noticed that mass shootings tend to occur in 'zero tolerance for weapons' areas... but if you are suggesting that students should bring guns to schools, or teachers, etc., then that's a recipe for disaster. what i have noticed is that people who mass murder seem to have absolutely no trouble getting their hands on automatic weapons! the fact that they seek out places where there are people is part of their plan.... you can't spend your life living in fear of the unknown. by the same token, the United States does not have a sufficient history or experience in peace keeping, peace making, nor peace enforcement. Part of the duties of a Department of Peace would address these inadequacies. Working at Peace requires a completely different set of tools, theories, training, strategies and people that have nothing in common with making war and killing people (the job of the Department of Defense).

In the light of transparency, I was surprised to realize how much of our federal budget goes towards the military. Although I respect and honor the service of our military, I would like to see a shift in our investment towards peace. 85% of the Dept. of Peace Act (HR808) would address the causes of violence right here, within our own borders. Participation, collaboration, capacity building and the legal and policy challenges are all related.

jennyclagett, peace at any price was tried in Europe prior to World War II. It was known at "appeasement" and was unsuccessful at achieving peace. Instead, it allowed a vicious tyrant to concentrate on one victim nation at a time.

"if you are suggesting that students should bring guns to schools, or teachers, etc., then that's a recipe for disaster." --- how so? If you look at the statistics, violent crime has increased as gun control laws have become more stringent. Disaster was predicted when states began re-legalizing concealed carry of firearms. Instead, violent crime rates went down.

"people who mass murder seem to have absolutely no trouble getting their hands on automatic weapons" --- incorrect! Automatic weapons aka "machine guns" have been heavily regulated since 1935. They have been illegal to manufacture or import since the mid 1980's. None of the highly publicised mass shooting of the last several years has involved automatic weapons.

If access to weapons and crowd were all that mass murderers look for, then mass shootings would occur at gun shows. None ever has

jezmercuri, Other than some record keeping and regulation of interstate commerce, the military is really all that the federal government should be spending money on. It is all the additional programs that are really none of their business anyway that I see as wasteful.

Peace is an immensely powerful force that is in line with law of nature. As science continues to evolve, so do we see more and more evidence that this is so. We are all connected. What we do to each other, we do to ourselves.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind ~ Mahatma Gandhi

vhowell, retaliation was not what I proposed. I suggest having the tools to prevent loosing your eye in the first place.

Peace has immense power when it is based on choice. Being peaceful simply because you are too week cowardly to have any other option is not.

Peace should come from mutual respect rather than through supplication.

Ghandi was hardly passive. He fought and won a war using psychological, rather than physical, force. The mind is, and always has been, the only really dangerous weapon.

Gun violence isn't the only kind of violence.

People rape. People abuse. People strangle. People beat. People kill.

Whether an AK-47 is used or not doesn't matter.

It's the act of reaching for a gun or using your hands to express your unmet needs that is the primary problem.

Conflict resolution, violence prevention and peer mediation programs already exist and are being used in some schools and communities to offset the rise in crime.

With a cabinet-level department, whose goals are to decrease homicide and crime, valuable programs like these would be be affordable for all schools.

With early intervention, you change lives and save lives.

I would imagine that at one point in your life you or someone you know has visited a doctor. When you reach a certain age, men and women are encouraged to do monthly breast exams and have a routine colonoscopy. A lump in your breast might be investigated with the help of a mammogram, a breast ultrasound or needle biopsy. A colonoscopy could should show polyps or a mass, and both can be removed. Left alone, all of it easily becomes a death sentence.

So how come typically we don't leave it alone? Because with early intervention, cancer is manageable and death is preventable.

Preventative medicine and preventing violence both save lives.

Verbal conflict resolution is a wonderful tool. It cannot be successful if it is the only tool.

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario:

For generations, everyone has been taught that violence is never acceptable, even in self defense. A small child, too young to understand his lessons, pushes another small child in a dispute over a toy. The child who has been pushed is confused and hurt and runs away crying and leaves the toy. As the boy who did the pushing gets older, her remembers that hitting got him what he wanted, repeats the previously successful action. No matter how much the bot is counseled, he clings to his personal experience that pushing others gets him what he wants.

How do you stop that boy from continuing to bully others without using any sort of force or physical coercion? Do you really believe he will ever accept the lesson of non-violence when violence continues to be profitable.

If that same boy had attempted to bully a child who had been trained in self defense, he might have gotten some bruises. Would he not be more inclined to accept the power of verbal conflict resolution, once he learned directly that bullying has consequences?

I'd like to start by saying I appreciate the tone and content of the conversation everyone is having. I think it's important to address all these issues, ask questions and explore the answers provided to find what we can agree on and what we are willing to accept as answers.

I don't believe either way is the complete solution jwelborn. I think that maybe you see conflict resolution as being equal to being a doormat. I in no way think you should ever be a doormat and allow anyone to abuse you or berate you. You should always stand up for yourself. But I don't think using karate is the smartest method or the most effective long-term response to bullying. I think self-confidence, self-worth and help from others is needed when you are being bullied. I speak from personal experience not just because of my involvement with the grassroots DOP campaign.

For about a year in the 8th or 9th grade (Junior High), I was bullied and punched every day by a group of 5 girls. I don't know why they felt the need to do this. As an adult, I assume they had some issues of their own at home. As a child, I had issues myself at home that allowed me to allow someone to punch me at school. Eventually I asked for help from another student and the punches stopped. We used our voices, not karate and somehow it worked. Other children, who have been in my shoes, chose to bring a gun to school and expressed their anger through violence. I could have made that choice as well. However, if there were anti-bullying or peer-mediation/counselling programs available to me, that would have helped me even more.

I think only learning martial arts glosses over and ignores the root causes of bullying and the aftermath of being bullied.

What causes a child to become a bully? Is it a learned behavior? Could it be a result of child abuse or witnessing domestic violence at home? I agree that a bully has to learn the consequences and emotional destruction caused by bullying. But the bully needs help as well. If you only teach a child to kick the @#$ of a bully, aren't you teaching the child the same thing? That using physical coercion and force gets him what he wants too? It's a cycle on both sides.

I would like for you to consider my invitation to read about a powerful program called Challenge Day.

http://www.challengeday.org/

Please consider watching this video from their website. Food for the thought.

http://vimeo.com/2109730

I don't think karate and I don't think playing possumm is the solution.

jwelborn3434

you have yet to show that you have any concept of what peace is all about. it's an actual discipline.

violence has escalated as gun controls tighten?? isn't that due to an influx of cheap guns?

Just how many mass murders have taken place in England or Singapore or pick any other place where guns are highly controlled?

The US has a culture of violence. Just check out Texas with it's crazy 'just shoot' policy and folks can just say 'I was scared.' If someone breaks into your neighbors house to steal stuff let the cops handle it. Forget this business of shooting people just because you're a vigilante gun nut. The vigilante gun nuts are just as dangerous as any common criminal. When it comes to guns used in crime, gun owners end up killing their own friends and family or themselves.

Frankly, the Department of Peace really has nothing to do with bullying little kids, though it certainly could. You obviously have absolutely no idea what Peace is all about. Peace keeping, peace enforcement and peace making saves millions of lives....

WWII was a whole lot more complicated than just a 'failed policy of appeasement.' You seem to have an endless capacity to regurgitate gun lobby B.S. let alone propaganda coming from the military industrial complex - where war is their business at profit.

Just for the record, here is an excerpt from the text of HR-808. Providing for programs that go to the root causes of domestic violence, bullying, crime, homicide, spousal abuse, child abuse etc is included in the Department of Peace.

READ THE ENTIRE BILL HERE:

http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/658/23/

SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall--

(1) work proactively and interactively with each branch of the Government on all policy matters relating to conditions of peace;

(2) serve as a delegate to the National Security Council;

(3) call on the experience and expertise of the people of the United States and seek participation in the development of policy from private, public, and non-governmental organizations; and

(4) monitor and analyze causative principles of conflict and make policy recommendations for developing and maintaining peaceful conduct.

(b) Domestic Responsibilities- The Secretary shall--

(1) develop policies that address domestic violence, including spousal abuse, child abuse, and mistreatment of the elderly;

(2) create new policies and programs and expand existing policies and programs that effectively reduce drug and alcohol abuse;

(3) develop new policies and programs and expand existing policies and programs that effectively address crime, punishment, and rehabilitation, including--

(A) working to reduce prison recidivism rates;

(B) supporting the implementation of nonviolent conflict resolution education and training for victims, perpetrators, and those who work with them; and

(C) supporting effective police and community relations;

(4) analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the tools of violence, including handguns, especially among youth;

(5) analyze existing policies and develop new policies to address violence against animals;

(6) develop new and expand current effective programs that relate to the societal challenges of school violence, gangs, racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and police-community relations disputes;

(7) make policy recommendations to the Attorney General regarding civil rights and labor law;

(8) assist in the establishment and funding of community-based violence prevention programs, including violence prevention counseling and peer mediation in schools and unarmed civilian peacekeeping at a local level;

(9) counsel and advocate on behalf of women victimized by violence;

(10) provide for public education programs and counseling strategies concerning hate crimes;

(11) promote racial, religious, and ethnic tolerance; and

(12) finance local community initiatives that can draw on neighborhood resources to create peace projects that facilitate the development of conflict resolution at a national level and thereby inform and inspire national policy.

jennyclagett, I have been in law enforcement, in Texas, for the last decade and can assure you that no "just shoot" law exists. Texas law states that a person may use deadly force to protect Him/her self or another person from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, or to prevent certain crimes during the nighttime.

Most law enforcement agencies have average emergency response times in excess of 2 minutes. Some far in excess. Two minutes is more than enough time for a murderer to have killed a victim and fled, even if that murderer is armed only with bare hands.

Any honest law enforcement officer will tell you that we cannot usually arrive in time to prevent a violent offense. We investigate afterward and arrest the offender. This does little to console the family of a dead victim and is only helpful if the courts ensure the guilty party does not re-offend.

I have the right to defend myself and others, if attacked. It would be hypocritical of me to tell some else that they do not have a right to defend themselves or their loved ones.

I have been around firearms my entire life. I have never shot or shot at a human being. My grandfather attended an elementary school where many of the children brought rifles to school daily. No one there went on a killing spree.

In England, I know of no mass shootings, but violent crimes involving guns, especially home invasion robbery, occur at a rate several times higher than before their firearms ban was enacted.

For Singapore I have no data.

In Japan, where guns a nearly impossible to obtain, there have been several mass murders and mass assaults by knife wielding suspects.

I have never seen a good person become homicidal upon contact with a firearm. I have seen those with a predatory mindset, injure and kill others with just about every sort of seemingly harmless item you can name. People can be violent. Inanimate objects cannot.

I have seen what happens when a caring person attempts to reason with the predator robbing them. The offender either kills or severely injures the caring person, then takes all their valuables and leaves laughing.

I have attended the funerals of officers killed simply because the killer thought he could get away with it. I have seen many suspects drop weapons and and submit to arrest without incident because they were faced enough officers to effectively respond to whatever level of violence the suspect initiated.

I say that violent people will avoid a fight they cannot win and look for weaker prey because I see it happen constantly.

I base my opinions on my daily observations rather than anyone's propaganda. On what personal observations are your statements based?

acampos_2001, I am very much in favor of conflict resolution and use deescalation techniques daily. My point is that some people will only participate in the conflict resolution process, if they are made aware that violent coercion would have more consequences than rewards.

The bill sounds great on the surface. However, I believe the that the "tools of violence" would be used to institute gun bans. Bans have lead to higher violent crime rates wherever used but are somehow politically popular.

I believe the "violence against animals" provisions would be used to eventually ban all forms of hunting and fishing. Many poor families depend on wild game for a significant portion of their diet.

The domestic violence and hate crime provision worry me because those we already have have created problems. State law address in every state that I know of already addresses these. Federal laws that act within the states tend to actually hinder enforcement do to conflicts between the state and federal laws.

please ignore the extra word "address" in my last post

I think JWell and Jenny are bringing up some really valid points and concerns! But I'm on East Coast time and checking out for the night! I'm looking forward to continuing this fantastic conversation tomorrow.

jwelborn3434....."Texas law states that a person may use deadly force to protect Him/her self or another person from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, or to prevent certain crimes during the nighttime." and i've read about what's been happening since the law was enacted..... prevent certain crimes....that is 'just shoot'. there you go.

as far as your comments on bullying, you are blaming the victims saying it's there fault that they can't defend themselves. seriously. bullying is more than just someone not being able to defend themselves. and how many times has someone with a gun had it used on themselves? i don't have a problem with people not killing animals, but that isn't what any one has suggested.

bans DO NOT lead to higher crime rates. that is just not true.

the leading cause of crime is a poor economy, disenfranchisement, poor education, lack of opportunities.....

all of the gun bands have been directed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals - and hopefully the insane and angry - and, I only wish, the cowards out there -

the State laws are inadequate.

and i have worked with the military and with Peace and as I've said there is a whole 'science' developed that the US does not participate in.

jennyclagett, Deadly force does not mean "just shoot" Nothing in law states that deadly force must be accomplished with a firearm. If you tell me what cases you are talking about, I would be better able to discuss them.

I DO NOT blame victims of bullying fro being unable to defend themselves. I do put some of the blame on parents who do not prepare their children to defend themselves verbally, physically and psychologically.

You are correct that weapons be taken away from their owners. This is issue should be addressed as part training to use any weapon. (Getting sprayed with one's own pepper spray would be painful and embarrassing)

Please research for yourself, the change in the violent crime rates in Britain and Australia in the year immediately following their national gun bans.

If a poor economy, etc. CAUSED crime, then all poor people would be committing crimes. That is not the case. Good people do not rob, rape, or murder,not matter how poor or hungry they get.

The National Firearms Act prohibits ownership of certain types of weapons based on mode of operation and caliber. Neither of those criteria has anything to do with mental illness or criminal history.

State law is not inadequate, it is under enforced. "Felony probation" is an oxymoron and should never be an actual sentence.

If "worked with the military" means that your were, or are, a member of one of the armed forces, then thank you for your service.

You can just check out the murder statistics for other countries - enough said. You don't have to worry about being shot at in no-gun countries. Let's see Texas, just the last few months, a couple shoots and kills a kid and shoots his father because they thought they were trespassing on their land and had the right to defend their land.....a man shoots two robbers in the back who were robbing his neighbors' house and kills them (no charges will be filed cuz he was scared.....what total BS)..... both site the 'just shoot' law.... and there are others....

Poor economy, no jobs, no future, no training or education, stupid decisions....do drugs....get hooked...commit crimes....no jobs, no food, steal stuff.....prostitute themselves.....

"Good people" commit crimes all the time. I have found so-called "Good people" to not be particularly good at all.

And as far as automatic weapons being available, semi-automatic weapons are widely available and can be modified into automatic weapons.... Why do the Police want guns taken off the streets???

Many parents don't do what they 'should' do, but you can't expect a parent to understand what can be done about bullying. That's why police and various social services run programs in school for anti-bullying and anti-gangs. Bullies pick on someone weaker. A bully six grader is going to dominate a 4th grader regardless of the 4th's grader ability to defend themselves....

The bully is the problem.

So when the economy goes bad and crime goes up its' caused by what???? Yes, there is inadequate policing. Bush got rid of Clinton's 100,000 extra police....and the crime rates went up....but a poor economy can guarantee higher rates of crime....regardless of class or 'income'...

And as far as training comment, that's typical NRA. I've watched people give loaded guns to 2 1/2 and a 5 year old and have them do target practice and claim that those kids were trustworthy because their dad taught them to respect guns. No one in that family - Dad included - should be allowed near a gun. They have zero judgement. I have found the most cowardly people gravitate towards guns in hoards. No coward should be allowed near a gun.

You haven't given me any reason to think that a Department of Peace isn't a great idea.

I agree with Ana that I appreciate the tone of this ongoing discourse. These conversations are exactly what we need to address the levels of violence, and find the common ground to get to the end result that we all want: to live in a safer, more secure, and more peaceful world.

jwelborn, you have clear thoughts and ideas, which I appreciate. It seems you are very focused on self-defense as relates to psychological, physical, and the use of weapons. The legislation to create a Department of Peace does not indicate that actions will be taken to remove weapons from citizens of the world. Rather, it focuses much more on the psychological and physical -- addressing, as jennyclaggett mentions -- the root causes of violence. It seems that you are extending the content of the legislation to your concerns of what kind of restrictions may be imposed should the legislation be enacted. I submit that the spirit of the legislation is not to restrict, but to expand -- expand the thoughts and responses of people to the threat of violence when it occurs.

It has been proven that levels of desperation caused by child mortality, lack of access to markets, and a couple of other factors that escape me right now, lead to violent outbreaks. Locally in our communities, the desperation is a social wound that we all are affected by, whether violence has directly affected our lives or not. We live in a society that is outwardly violent, and we are exposed to the results of this violence on a daily basis -- just turn on the headline news every night.

The idea is that a Secretary of Peace would work with the State Department, Defense Department, Justice Department, Department of Education -- all related cabinet-level positions -- to work together to explore alternate responses to violence or the threat of violence when it occurs.

Look at it this way: if I get hit by a truck, and am hemorrhaging, call 911 and get me to the ER. That's the Department of Defense, or local law enforcement approach alone, when no other alternatives exist. But if I am diagnosed with cancer, I may want to explore alternatives to the treatment. I want to talk with the oncologist, and possibly the surgeon. But I may also want to explore accupunture, energy healers, nutrition, and support groups, all of which may have a positive effect. I want to explore the options, research them, and determine my best path forward. That's the approach that would include a Department of Peace in the mix. In certain circumstances, our decision may be to utilize military force. But wouldn't it be smart to explore alternatives, and possibly find another approach that would be effective without the cost of war? Wouldn't local law enforcement appreciate assistance on the high number of cruiser calls that are taken when people are basically just not able to get along? Side note: Detroit PD estimates 80% of their calls are of this description, and they are the highest risk for police officers.

Right now, there is no voice at the table to propose alternatives to our traditional responses to violence. Clearly, our traditional responses are not working, given the increase of violence in our society.

Consider just a few facts:

- The cost of Corrections is up 585% from 1982 to 2004 - building prisons is the single largest urban industry in our country

- 12 children in the US lose their lives to gun violence every day in the US. If you take 25 first world countries -- England, Germany, Japan, etc. -- and add up all their numbers together, then multiply that number by 10, that's what we have in the United States

- Youth suicide rates are 10 times higher in the US than in other industrialized nations

- A woman is beaten by her partner or former partner every 15 seconds

- The World Health organization estimates the cost of interpersonal violence, excluding the cost of war, at $300 Billion annually

- As to war, in the 20th century an estimated 191 million people lost their lives due to armed conflict; well over half were civilians

- Overall, more than 1.6 million of the world's citizens lose their lives each year due to violence.

We are at an all systems breakdown, and we need an all systems response.

An institutional platform is needed for the peace-building community that exists, but is underfunded, under supported and under publicized. Throughout the country, there are countless programs and projects working to ameliorate the effects of violence, with proven and practical methods to effectively treat the root causes of violence.

We can either continue reacting to violence after it occurs, or we can get serious about proactively preventing violence in the first place.

- 20 years ago, health insurance companies didn't pay for preventive care. They've learned -- we all have -- that preventing illness is far more effective and less expensive than treating illness after it occurs

- My husband says it's as if we're living alongside a beautiful river, and pollution keeps on flowing down into our river. We are expending tremendous resources cleaning out the river, cleaning the water, and removing the pollution. But we're not sending anyone upstream to find out where the pollution is coming from -- wouldn't that make more sense?

8th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates created a charter for a world without violence, citing violence as a preventable disease. The charter states: "To address all forms of violence we encourage scientific research in the fields of human interaction and dialogue, and we invite participation from the academic, scientific and religious communities to aid us in the transition to non-violent, and non-killing societies."

The bill before the U.S. House of Representatives, HR 808, is to establish a United States Department of Peace. This historic measure will augment our current problem-solving options, providing practical, nonviolent solutions to the problems of domestic and international conflict. This is not to imply passive responses, jwelborn -- but proactive, practical, effective and active yet nonviolent responses.

Is this a new idea? No. It was first introduced in 1792 by Benjamin Banaker and Benjamin Rush, both Republicans. That concept was a lot different than the current one, but the idea has been brought forth many times over history. Between 1955 and 1968 similar legislation was submitted to Congress over 85 times.

Why another governmental structure? We need an institutional platform to set the intention and be dedicated to building and creating a more peaceful and safe society. In the 1960's President Kennedy said we'd be on the moon in 10 years. At the time, that seemed like a pretty fantastic idea. In fact, the science existed, but it wasn't coordinated. Based on his stated intention, and the leadership behind it, NASA was created -- and we were on the moon in 10 years. What better intention could we set today than to leave the world safer for future generations?

Is it an idealistic vision? The first abolitionist had no reason to believe that abolition was possible. Any real social change is not brought about because it seemed possible at the time. From the abolition of slavery, to women's suffrage, to the civil rights movement of the 1960's, social change occurs when citizens come to a critical mass and clearly direct the elected leaders to make a change. I submit to you that peace -- the proactive, practical intention to create and build a safe, secure and peaceful world in which to live -- is the issue of our time.

Peace is not just the opposite of war or the absence of violence.

Peace is practical. Peace is the only sustainable option. It must be a conscious choice, of conscious and active citizens.

Check it out at www.thepeacealliance.org.

Here are links to two promotional videos that may be of interest:

And just a handful of the hundreds of programs that exist that would be supported by the Department of Peace:

1. NVC - http://www.cnvc.org/

2. Challenge Day - http://www.challengeday.org/

3. Ari Cowan's PAR program in Clallam Bay correctional facility, Washington - http://www.aricowan.net/pgs/par/01par.html

4. Azim Khamisa's Tariq Khamisa Foundation - http://www.tkf.org/

5. Youth PROMISE Act - http://www.bobbyscott.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=291&Itemid=86

6. Ohio Dispute Resolution - http://disputeresolution.ohio.gov/commissn.htm

7. Community Conferencing - http://www.communityconferencing.org/

8. Barrios Unidos - http://www.barriosunidos.net/index.htm

VA-http://www.peacewarriors.net/buva.htm

More stats on bullying for consideration in the dialog.

• Over 70 percent of School Resource Officers in the U.S. surveyed felt that aggressive

behavior in elementary school children has increased in their districts in the past five

years. (2003 NASRO School Resource Officer Survey, National Association of School Resource Officers)

• Of children in sixth through tenth grade in the U.S., more than 3.2 million-nearly one in

six-are victims of bullying each year, while 3.7 million bully other children. (“Bullying Prevention

is Crime Prevention,” Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, 2003)

• Nearly 60 percent of boys who researchers classified as bullies in grades six through

nine were convicted of at least one crime by the age of 24. Even more dramatic, 40

percent of them had three or more convictions by age 24. (“Bullying Prevention is Crime Prevention,”

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, 2003)

• A study on the cost-effectiveness of early intervention to prevent serious crime in

California, showed that training for parents whose children exhibited aggressive behavior

was estimated to have prevented 157 serious crimes (such as homicide, rape, arson and

robbery) for every $1 million spent. In fact, training in parenting skills was estimated to be

about three times as cost-effective as the so-called ‘‘three-strikes’’ law in California.

I am too far behind to respond to all of what has been said. I will respond to the factual arguments rather than the emotional one because those reacting on an emotional level will not believe any evidence which conflicts with their emotional position.

Jezmercuri, You have some very valid points and some good solid data. I believe the statistic about children killed by gun violence is classified anyone under 18 as children, including teen gang members engaged in violent street crime.

I agree that to reduce violence and victimization we must address the root of the problem. However, I have a slightly different view than many here of where that root lies.

I do not see how one can say that removing the tools used to effect violence and victimization, will solve the problem. It will merely leave you with less efficient victimization.

To achieve any true prevention, you must act on the people who feel that they have the right to victimize others.

I see "zero tolerance" fighting policies as misguided and counterproductive because they only look at the fact that force was used. Why for was used is completely ignored. Intent is a key element in most major crimes for a reason. If we ignore intent and only see result, then a fatal car crash is the same as deliberate murder.

I see a lack of personal responsibility as a major reason crime is rampant in this county. I call it the "somebody aught to do something" mentality. People see violent crimes in progress and either walk away and call the police or, more often, just walk away and assume someone else will call the police. Almost no one attempts to help the victim!

The same applies to bullying. Adults see bullies assaulting other children and do nothing, They are afraid they will be seen as assaulting a child if they pull the bully off of his victim.

"Force is bad" is too simplistic a statement and leads to confusion. We need to spell out for our children when it is wrong to use force and why, when it is acceptable to use force and why, and when it is a moral obligation to use force and why.

For example: If you see a man beating a woman in a public place, what is the morally correct action to take? Do you leave the area and call for police while the beating continues? Do you pretend you saw nothing? DO you walk over and steal the woman's purse off of the ground? Or, do you take action to stop the beating, then call the police to insure the offender is properly punished?

My understanding is that failing to defend yourself is neither moral nor immoral. Failing to defend another, who is incapable of self-defense, is both immoral and a breach of your obligation to society.

jwelborn, we agree completely on a few key points -- and you agree with the legislation in this regard as well:

"I do not see how one can say that removing the tools used to effect violence and victimization, will solve the problem." ...the legislation specifically speaks to increasing tools for individuals, as well as our teachers, law enforcement officers, military, elected officials and others -- it doesn't speak to removing tools.

"I see "zero tolerance" fighting policies as misguided and counterproductive ..." the legislation does not mention anything about 'zero tolerance' policies.

"I see a lack of personal responsibility as a major reason crime is rampant..." and, perhaps, a lack of education and tools for those who appear to lack personal responsibility.

""Force is bad" is too simplistic a statement..." Absolutely true. My example about calling 911 if I get hit by a truck and am bleeding in the street vs. seeking a variety of options if I am diagnosed with cancer speaks to this.

The concept of 'force' is an interesting discussion, as well... you may be interested in a documentary film and website called A Force More Powerful - http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/. You had mentioned Gandhi's successful overthrow of oppression in India in a previous post -- that was an expression of force that was a successful nonviolent uprising. There are many throughout history, delineated here.

The movement to expand our tools and strategies regarding how to deal with violence or the threat of violence is what this legislation supports, and what a Department of Peace will represent.

Let's look at the Department of Peace concept, legislation and movement -- and address those issues. I think we have more common ground than not.

terry, I'm sorry. I left it unclear when I was objecting to the proposed legislation and when to the other arguments made by supporters of the legislation.

My main objection to the proposal, as written, is the potential for abuse. Granting such sweeping powers to one cabinet appointee is very dangerous. An unethical president could easily use these provisions to circumvent constitutional checks and balances.

If the proposal was the formation of a private research firm with the same goals, I would have no objection.

A doctor recently said, "We are in the business of sickness, but we should be in the business of wellness." Likewise, we have a "Defense" Department (which was called the War Office or War Department from 1789 until September 18, 1947) potently framing the terms in which Americans think of international problem-solving. Shouldn't we be thinking in terms of diplomacy and peace as our first "wellness" response? The institution of a Peace Department would grant the necessary high-level and wide-spread public recognition to strategies that maintain and encourage peace rather than those that threaten war.

Wonderfully lofty goal but look at the reality of the proposal. It further concentrates power in the executive branch. Allow president to become another word for emperor and we will never have peace.

We are changing. The world is changing. The time has become that we begin getting to the heart of the collective challenges we face as humans as opposed to the current method of dealing with our challenges which is reaction based response that treats symptoms once things melt down.

The Department of Peace will be the much needed arm of the Federal Government drawing from the amazing knowledge, experience, resources, and best practices that already exist to help us address the root causes of violence and allow us all to find ways in our personal lives, in communities, and on our planet to live more harmoniously and at peace.

Got it. This is the spout pretty nothings and refuse to look at any facts thread.

Thank you all for standing up and taking an action towards peace. THE BILL moved on July 22nd, for the first time in years.

HR-808 U.S. Department of Peace Act moved into a powerful sub-committee!!! In my opinion, exactly where it belongs.

"Jul 22nd Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security."

I have provided a link to the BILL below.

http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/658/23/

After reading the bill, support it by contacting your Member of Congress through http://www.ThePeaceAlliance.org

If you have any questions, please ask. There are several dedicated and knowledgeable DOP supporters on this page.

The bill moving into a committee like this means several things. First, someone is paying attention behind the scenes. Secondly, it's a step closer to a vote. Thirdly, there are 4 Department of Peace cosponsors in this committee. For a bill to move on the road to law, it goes through committees for discussion and then is presented to the floor for a VOTE.

Your help is needed.

Please join www.ThePeaceAlliance.org today.

We need you.

...and remember in a very peaceful and understanding way, "Big Brother is WATCHING you"

LOL! I would be more concerned with your neighbors, internet users and your employer watching you before the old "Big Brother" scare tactics.

The government is on my side.

Did you know medical records requests are very popular with insurance companies? Did you know that most of the time, they lose the first package and the copies are sent again?

Did you know your private information is available through online public records? To include family, civil, criminal, traffic issues and sometimes your ss# and date of birth?

Are you aware that most of the time when you call your BANK, your insurance company, your cellphone provider the customer service department is located in a foreign country and they have access to all your personal information?

I'm aware of how much of my information is in the public domain and it doesn't really bother me. This bill concentrates too much power and access in the Executive branch of the federal government.

To my knowledge, neither my neighbors nor any insurance company have ever dragged those who disagreed with them off to "reeducation camps." National governments have.

OKIE doke Jwel. To my knowledge, OUR government never has and never will drag those who disagree with them off to "reeducation camps".

Obviously black people would still be slaves, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and the Vietnam War would still be taking place, if that were true.

Are you concerned that your freedom of expression would be taken from you?

If you are interested, please be more specific. I don't see your point about too much power or access allowed in the Executive Branch. Taking a look around, I see very little involvement by the government to support conflict resolution in schools or national violence prevention programs.

???

My point is that I WANT very little (if any) involvement by the government in any aspect of my life.

"To my knowledge, OUR government never has and never will drag those who disagree with them off to "reeducation camps"." You might want to look back at WWII. The detention camps that Americans of Japanese descent were sent came awfully close.

The totalitarian ideology programed into the German people that led to WWII was started by the national socialist (aka NAZI) party. They took control promising change, expanded the power of the national government, and eventually delivered a reign of terror that left scars on the entire world.

America's version of the "national socialist" party has now taken power and is seeking to expand the powers of the federal government, and the president in particular. Anyone who has studied history should be terrified by this!

Will no one wake in time? Will you realize what has happened only when you are looking back on atrocities you have committed in the name of the charismatic leader?