Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

terry

User Profile Image terry
Member since : May-30-2009 (Verified)
0 Ideas, 3 Comments, 1 Votes

User Activity Stream

Comments Posted

terry 9 months ago
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 9 months ago
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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxCfs4l15EY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My6BF8GZM2g&feature=related

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
terry 9 months ago
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.