What I thought of, straight off, as I watched that 17-minute WikiLeaks video of Iraqis – including a Reuters photographer and his driver – being strafed on a Baghdad street in 2007 by a U.S. helicopter, was a book of postcards published a decade ago.

The book, compiled by James Allen, is called Without Sanctuary. My guess is that you don’t have it sitting on your coffee table. The postcards and various other stained, frayed photographs – about a hundred of them – depict mostly black men, a few women, a few white men, in the process or aftermath of being lynched in the United States, in the first half of the 20th century. The dangling or burned corpses are surrounded, in most of the pictures, by grim or smirking or benevolently smiling onlookers, some of them children. It’s the most surreal and troubling historical document I’ve ever seen in my life.

When ground troops discover two wounded children in the van, which had been taken out with armor-piercing shells (“Look at that, right through the windshield”), one of the helicopter crewmen comments: “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids to a battle.”

This is where the frame freezes for me, and I remain stuck, churning in my own outrage and despair just as I have – and so many millions of Americans have – since the war on terror was launched amid all its lies and cowardly righteousness in 2001. For God’s sake, we’re killing people. We’re doing so in large numbers, with high-tech savagery. We aren’t even defending ourselves. We’ve invented an enemy out of whole cloth.

We’re . . . killing . . . people.
But it didn’t matter then and it doesn’t matter now. Those who defend this war, or war in general – or the infinitesimal slice of war depicted in the WikiLeaks video – have an endless supply of rationalizations that only make sense within a heavily fortified consciousness: a consciousness unable or afraid to cross the line demarking us and them, to ask, fleetingly, “What if those ‘dead bastards’ were my parents, my brothers, my children?”

Ask that and things start to change. It’s called empathy. Embrace it and you can no longer tolerate war – not this kind of war, modern, impersonal, fought from above – as a way to advance the interests of business and empire, or to make a geopolitical statement. If too many people cross that line, it’s a big problem for the war economy. This is “Vietnam syndrome” redux. The original took a generation to expunge. The powers that be, who took a big hit with the Abu Ghraib torture photos, certainly don’t want a leaked, decrypted video to undo all that meticulous planning.

The media that supported the war on terror at the outset continue, helpfully, to cover all matters related to it with their empathy meters set at zero. In so doing, they, and the dispassionate experts whose quotes they solicit, are able to coax many guilt-stricken and confused patriots back to psychological safety.

The New York Times, ever the leader in this effort, recently hauled out some psychologists to “explain” the video: “You don’t want combat soldiers to be foolish or to jump the gun, but their job is to destroy the enemy, and one way they’re able to do that is to see it as a game, so that the people don’t seem real,” said Army psychologist Bret A. Moore.

And thus those viewers of the video who were shocked to discover just how real and unpretty war is can relax and recover from their empathy attack. War is a game, see? These guys were doing their jobs. All the way up the chain of command, they’re just doing their jobs. And mainstream journalists will continue to describe those jobs unquestioningly within the parameters of the game.

Thus Yochi J. Dreazen, writing in the Wall Street Journal, explains that “Defense Secretary Robert Gates said civilian casualties in Afghanistan were posing a strategic challenge to U.S. battlefield success there. . . .”

Dead Afghan civilians are “a problem.” They make other Afghans angry and then they join the enemy. One of the “problems” Dreazen’s story referenced was the American Special Forces operation last February in Gardez, in which five civilians, including two pregnant women, were killed during a raid on what turned out to be a baby shower. The Americans, apparently realizing they’d screwed up, tried to give themselves deniability in the killings by digging their bullets out of some of the corpses, witnesses said. At least it wasn’t caught on video.

While the war on terror, or whatever it’s called in the Obama era, will grind someday to a shameful halt, I despair that there’s no stopping the next one. The occasional graphic video is no match for a media establishment with empathy meters set at zero.

Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at koehlercw@gmail.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.)

© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Today we begin the process of undoing the great harm done by a narrow majority on the U.S. Supreme Court in its recent Citizens United v. FEC decision. I just returned from our first Senate Judiciary Committee hearing focused specifically on how, in light of the Court's misguided decision, we can protect our political process from excessive corporate spending.


The Founding Fathers crafted a Constitution and adopted a Bill of Rights to guarantee the fundamental rights of the American people, not corporations. After all, corporations are different from individual citizens. They do not have the same rights, morals, or motivations. They cannot vote. They are legal constructs designed to conduct commerce, nothing more.




When the conservative activist majority on the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens to spend as much as they like to influence the political process, they ran roughshod over longstanding precedent and effectively redrafted our well-established campaign finance laws.



At the core of the First Amendment is the right of individual citizens to speak and to be heard in the political process. But if the Supreme Court's recent decision goes unchecked, it would not take much corporate money, relatively speaking, to outspend every candidate for every political party at every level of American government.



When the Citizens United decision was handed down, I said that it was the most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore. As in Bush v. Gore, the conservative activists on the Supreme Court unnecessarily went beyond the proper judicial role to substitute their preferences for the law. But Citizens United is broader and more damaging, because rather than intervening to decide a single election, the Court intervened to affect all future elections.



In the coming weeks and months I will call on you to help enact specific legislation aimed at restoring our democratic process in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens Uniteddecision. Until then, please forward this email to your friends and family to continue building awareness about the grave implications of this wrongly decided case and the importance of closing the floodgates of corporate spending in American elections.



Thank you.



Sincerely,



Patrick Leahy

U.S. Senator

by Rabbi Michael Lerner

This moment will be looked back upon as giving a signal of encouragement to some of the most fascistic elements in the American political Right.

Van Jones Resignation: Bad for the Country and Bad for Obama By Rabbi Michael Lerner

I signed the same statement on 9/11 that Van Jones signed, and there was nothing immoderate about it. It didn't say what the Right claimed it said (and the mainstream media chimed in without investigation). I'll explain below.

Jones' resignation is bad for the country and for the Obama Administration. It's bad for Americawhen progressive views are an excuse to purge someone from the Administration while extremist right-wing views of past Administrations were always given a "pass."

Van Jones forced resignation is a huge defeat for the forces of sanity and humanity, and represents a deep failure of the Obama-ites to understand the nature of the challenge they face from an increasingly fascistic Right wing.

Right-wingers pounced on him for a speech in which he allegedly called Right-wingers assholes, though he used the same word to describe himself and the Left. But what gave them a supposedly clinching argument was that he signed a statement calling for an objective investigation of 9/11. Look below to see what it really said—not what the media claimed.
The forced resignation of Van Jones demonstrates the lack of backbone of the Obama Administration.

Jones was a rare progressive appointment among the wide array of Wall Street sycophants and Inside-the-Beltway pragmatists who have misled Obama into a path that has caused him to lose his initial popularity and severely endanger his presidency.

The notion that Jones' past could have a serious impact on the future of health care reform defies all plausibility--those who will oppose health care reform will do so just as strongly without Jones' presence in the White House as they would have had he remained. The message being given by the Obama Administration is clear: if you on the Right critique us, we will pander to you and abandon our friends.

In conditions of expanding prosperity, this would create the possibility of a resurgence of McCarthyism throughout the society. in conditions of growing economic pain, this kind of mimicking of the worst behavior of the German middle-of-the-roaders during the WeimarRepublic sets the stage for the possibility of a genuine home grown fascism in the U.S.

If, God forbid, that should happen, people will look back to the capitulations on health care, human rights, and many other policy areas of the Obama Administration, but will give equal importance to the abandonment of Van Jones and the signal it gives to the Right.

As to how Jones could have signed the statement below, let me make clear that neither he nor I, who also signed the statement, signed something accusing Bush of being directly involved in 9/11. I did authorize my name to be used to call for an investigation of the claims of those who deny the official story of 9/11.

I am now and was then an agnostic about what actually happened to make 9/11 possible, but do agree with those who say that there are enough inconsistencies and problems with the official story to warrant an impartial investigation by people not connected to the government of the US and not bound by political considerations. I think that such an investigation would be a great advantage to everyone.

I have often found myself surrounded by people obsessed with 9/11 and acting in ways that I would call "nut cases" because they are so sure that they know not only what I agree with--namely that the inconsistencies deserve further investigation-- but also what I disagree with, namely that there is a prima facie reason to believe that President Bush had concrete prior knowledge of an attack on the US and for political reasons allowed it to happen. Frankly, I don't believe that one bit, but that is one of the reasons why I'd like to see an impartial investigation by people who have no political stake in the outcome of that investigation,and with the power to subpoena all relevant documents. Such an investigation could once and for all put these paranoid types to rest or at least silence them. So that is why I signed the call.

What the Right did, with the help of the 9/11 "truthers," was to distort the intention of at least some of us who were asked to sign the statement. The "truthers" published that statement with their own speculations of the role of Bush, and the way that it appears on their website makes it possible for someone to imagine that the signatories to the statement were all agreeing to their framing--and that is simply not true. Conversely, the Right used that deceptive form of publicity by the "truthers" to affirm something that Van Jones and others made clear we never intended to sign, namely the claim that Bush was knowingly involved. ( One reason I don't believe Bush was part of 9/11: it was too well executed for that bungler to have been involved. Even Cheney seemed incapable of pulling off a serious military move, much less something that would have required the coordination and secrecy to make 9/11 happen, and then keep secret the involvement of others for the next eight years.. Though it worked very much in favor of their militarist policies, they were far too incompetent to have made it happen. )

I was asked to sign a letter which I was told had four demands: As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things: An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings. Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence. The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

I did not authorize my name to be used for all the other stuff that I now see was included surrounding the letter, namely the sponsors of that 911truth.org, and would not have had I been aware that all that stuff was presented in ways that suggested that I agreed with it, and though I do recognize a few of the people I'd consider "nut cases" among the list of signatories, my guess is that most of those who signed were, like me, unaware of the context in which our names would appear.

Some time after signing that, I was asked to be part of a book of people questioning 9/11. In that book I said what I said here--that I am an agnostic on the question of what really happened, neither believing the official story nor the alternative stories that I've heard presented. However, in that article I made clear that I believe that the people pushing in that direction of trying to make this into a big issue were making a mistake, not because I knew that they were wrong, but because I don't think that progressives or spiritual progressives like myself should be wasting their time uncovering conspiracies

. My own experience with the FBI and other law enforcement groups during the anti-Vietnam-war movement period in the 60s and 70s leads me to believe that there are far more conspiracies than most of us would believe, but they are fundamentally irrelevant to what shapes American policies, and hence not worth spending much time on unless one's goal is to become a famous investigative reporter. The uncovering of Watergate, in my estimation, actually served to focus attention away from the structural problems in American politics and economics that generated American need to dominate much of the world, and instead into a focus on the specific criminal acts of Richard Nixon.

I would have been far more interested in seeing the war crimes actions of Dr. Kissinger brought to justice, and the military industrial complex which he represented and the FBI that engaged in illegal acts exposed by the Frank Church investigations into Co-Intelpro in 1994 and 95. So, I've urged these people to stop putting their energy into this focus on 9/11 which is, in my view, a waste of time and energy. Yet, for the good of the country, I would like to see some impartial investigation done if that were imaginable (it certainly won't be generated by the Obama Administration or by the current Congress), to answer all the legitimate questions that have been raised and not yet answered.

My guess is that they can be answered in ways that will disappoint those who think that the whole thing was a conspiracy, because most of what seems most questionable or implausible is based on the theory that people normally act rationally, whereas my own experience as a psychotherapist for several decades leads me to believe that what seemed irrational and hence possibly intended for some other purpose (for example, the way so many people ignored the warnings being given to FBI and other intelligence agencies in the months before 9/1 warning about many of the aspects of 9/11) turn out to be just the normal stupidity and lack of attention that one finds pervasive in so many of human institutions and social practices, and not a reflection of a conspiracy to win political advantage!!!

But this kind of complex answer doesn't fit into a sound byte, does it?

The bigger issue remains: how Obama responds to the assaults from the Right. The pattern he sets by allowing his assistants to force Jones to resign (or set by Jones himself in the unlikely case that he made the decision without such outside pressure) is one of capitulation—and that will only guarantee yet more extreme assaults from the Right. Wilhelm Reich in the late 1920s analyzed the growth of fascism in Germany, and one of his important observations was that the fascists managed to intimidate people because the Left was not in the streets challenging them. Luckily, we are not yet at a point where the Right is scaring people in the streets of American cities, but they are doing so through the media. What is needed is a vigorous challenge in the media from liberals and progressives, and the obvious place from which that should be coming is the Obama Administration. If, instead, they wimp out, as so many Congressional Democrats have done for the past many years, the Right will be encouraged and tens of millions of decent Americans will become fearful and withdraw from public involvement, allowing a path to power for some of the most hate-oriented forces in American society. Historians may well look back at the Van Jones resignation as an important step in that process of shifting the society, so recently rejoicing at having gotten back on track toward progressive values, toward a renewed McCarthyism or worse.

Of course, I have lots of compassion for Obama and for Jones, because when they peer out into the society they don't hear enough voices speaking out on their behalf. Please read the Sept/Oct editorial I wrote on that topic! And I have compassion for many Americans on the Right who have been deeply misled both about the facts and about how to understand them by rightwing media like FOX, and by spineless liberal politicians and media who rarely provide Americans with an alternative context through which they can analyze their experiences and the news. But that compassion should not lead us to inaction, but rather to vigorous advocacy of a spiritual progressive perspective, recognizing that many Americans would actually be quite moved were they to hear such a perspective and see how that could be tied to specific programs to heal and transform our world.

Rabbi Michael Lerner Editor, Tikkun Magazine The Original Statement We Signed: Please note that the only reference to involvement of government officials (implied: Bush Administration) comes in reference to a poll that indicated Americans belief that such involvement was possible. To seek an independent investigation, which is what I and Van Jones and others called for, was NOT to endorse the suspicion of conspiracy, but at least in my case and in the case of many others, to want to put that behind us by insisting on getting a coherent story rather than the obviously inadequate story put out by the US government and media. In citing issues that had not been reoslved, the signatories to this letter were referencing unanswered questions that required an impartial investigation. In fact, they still do require such an investigation, but not because of any reason to suspect that the Bush Administration itself was directly involved. Tuesday, October 26 2004 - Endorsements & Support 911 Truth Statement

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) - An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation. Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijacker funding to foreign government forewarnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry. The Statement's list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans and Global Exchange's Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins to business leaders such as Paul Hawken and Karl Schwarz, CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O'Meara. The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy. The Statement was facilitated by 911truth.org, a leading coalition. The organization has also announced a press conference outside of Eliot Spitzer's Manhattan office (corner of Cedar and Nassau) at 2:00PM on Thursday, Oct. 28th where 9/11 family members and victim group representatives will file a formal complaint demanding the first criminal investigation of 9/11 events by the New York Attorney General. The Statement We Want Real Answers About 9/11 On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General. In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war. We want truthful answers to questions such as:
1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party. As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
1. An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
2. Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
3. Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
4. The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness. In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds inflicted on that terrible day. Signed, Signatories Note: All organizations are mentioned for identification purposes only. Individuals have signed this statement as an act of their own conscience, not to signify organizational endorsement.
1. Virginia Deane Abernethy, Ph.D., anthropologist, author, Population Politics
2. Ed Asner, actor, activist
3. Marshall Auerback, international portfolio strategist for David W. Tice & Associates, Inc.
4. Catherine Austin Fitts, Asst. Secretary of Housing in the first Bush administration
5. Keidi Obi Awadu, aka The Conscious Rasta, talk show host, LIBRadio
6. Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for President
7. Byron Belitsos, publisher, Origin Press, author Planetary Democracy
8. Philip J. Berg, Esquire, former deputy attorney general, Pennsylvania
9. Medea Benjamin, activist, author, co-founder, Global Exchange and Code Pink
10. Dennis Bernstein, investigative reporter, radio host of KPFA's Flashpoints
11. Steve Bhaerman aka Swami Beyondananda, author, political comedian
12. Brad Blanton, Ph.D., psychotherapist, author, Radical Honesty
13. Saniel Bonder, spiritual teacher and author, Great Relief
14. Dr. Robert Bowman, USAF Lt. Col. (Rtd.), founder, Institute for Space and Security Studies
15. John Buchanan, author, candidate for the Republican Party Presidential nomination, 2004
16. Gray Brechin, Ph.D., author, environmental historian, professor, UC Berkeley
17. Fred Burks, presidential interpreter for Bush, Clinton, Cheney, and Gore
18. Norma Carr-Rufino, Ph.D., author, professor of management, San Francisco State University
19. Angana Chatterji, Ph.D., scholar-activist and professor of anthropology
20. Paul Cienfuegos, co-founder, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
21. David Cobb, attorney, national presidential candidate, US Green Party
22. John Cobb, Ph.D., theologian, co-author, For the Common Good
23. Ernest Callenbach, founder/editor, Film Quarterly, author, Ecotopia
24. Kevin Danaher, Ph.D., author, speaker, co-founder, Global Exchange
25. Stephen Dinan, author, Radical Spirit
26. Ronnie Dugger, journalist/author, co-founder, Alliance for Democracy
27. Daniel Ellsberg, author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers
28. Jodie Evans, co-founder, Code Pink
29. Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton University
30. Michael Franti, musician, filmmaker, human rights worker
31. Janeane Garofalo, actress, comedienne, talk show host, Air America Radio
32. Jim Garrison, Ph.D., president, State of the World Forum, author, America as Empire
33. Bruce Gagnon, Chair, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
34. Ric Giardina, author, consultant, speaker, former Director of Trademarks and Brands for Intel
35. John Gray, Ph.D., #1 bestselling author, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus
36. Stan Goff, 25-year Army Special Ops veteran, author, Full Spectrum Disorder
37. Melvin Goodman, senior fellow, Center for International Policy, author, former Senior Analyst, CIA, professor, National WarCollege
38. Morton Goulder, Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter
39. David Ray Griffin, Ph.D., theologian, author, New Pearl Harbor
40. Doris "Granny D" Haddock, campaign finance crusader, NH Democratic candidate for Senate
41. Thom Hartmann, radio host; author, Unequal Protection
42. Richie Havens, singer, songwriter, performer, artist
43. Paul Hawken, bestselling author, environmentalist, entrepreneur, founder of Smith & Hawken
44. Randy Hayes, founder, Rainforest Action Network, US National Director, Direction Conservation
45. Richard Heinberg, author, The Party's Over, core faculty, New College of California
46. Van Jones, executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
47. Rob Kall, editor, OpEdNews.com, president, Futurehealth, Inc.
48. Georgia Kelly, executive director, Praxis Peace Institute
49. Sean Kelly, Ph.D., author, professor of philosophy and religion, CA Institute of Integral Studies
50. John Joseph Kennedy, Democratic Write-in Presidential Candidate for 2004
51. Mimi Kennedy, actress, Dharma and Greg, progressive activist
52. Faiz Khan, M.D., Triage Emergency Physician on 9/11, Assistant Imam
53. David Korten, author, When Corporations Rule the World
54. Frances Moore Lapp?, author, Diet for a Small Planet; founder, Small Planet Institute
55. Scott M. Legere, 25 year radio broadcaster as Scott Ledger, Tampa FL
56. Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, TIKKUN Magazine, author, Healing Israel/Palestine
57. Michael Levine, bestselling author of Deep Cover, journalist, 25-year veteran of the DEA
58. Joanna Macy, Ph.D., eco-philosopher, author
59. Enver Masud, founder, The Wisdom Fund, author, The Truth About Islam
60. John McCarthy, former Special Forces Captain, president, Veterans Equal Rights Protection Advocacy
61. Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
62. Cynthia McKinney, five-term Congresswoman from Georgia
63. Ralph Metzner, Ph.D., author, professor, co-founder, Green Earth Foundation
64. Mark Crispin Miller, media critic, author, professor, New York University
65. Joseph W. Montaperto, New York City Fire Department
66. Leuren Moret, geoscientist, radiation specialist, environmental commissioner
67. Ralph Nader, Independent candidate for President
68. Craig Neal, author, co-founder, The Heartland Institute, former publisher, Utne Reader
69. Jeff Norman, executive director, Tour of Duty
70. Jenna Orkin, Esquire, World Trade Center Environmental Organization
71. Kelly Patricia O'Meara, investigative journalist, public relations
72. Michael Parenti, Ph.D., author, Superpatriotism and The Terrorism Trap
73. Edward L. Peck, former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism
74. Peter Phillips, Ph.D., professor, Sonoma State University, director, Project Censored
75. Henri Poole, Internet pioneer, board member, Free Software Foundation
76. Robert Rabbin, author, speaker, creator of TruthForPresident.org
77. Paul H. Ray, Ph.D., sociologist, author, The Cultural Creatives
78. John Renesch, business futurist, author, Getting to the Better Future
79. John Rensenbrink, professor emeritus, Bowdoin College, co-founder, US Green Party
80. John Robbins, author, founder, EarthSave International
81. William Rodriguez, 9/11 rescue effort hero, founder, Hispanic Victims Group
82. Neal Rogin, Emmy-award winning writer, performer, social observer
83. Allen Roland, Ph.D., psychotherapist, published author and peace activist
84. Rosemary Radford Ruether, professor of feminist theology, Graduate Theological Union
85. Michael Ruppert, publisher/editor, From The Wilderness, author, Crossing the Rubicon
86. Chris Sanders, founder, Sanders Research Associates
87. Karl W. B. Schwarz, President, CEO, Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC
88. Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, author, Drugs, Oil, and War
89. Firefighter Kevin Shea, FDNY Hazmat Operations
90. Michelle Shocked, singer/songwriter, activist
91. Indira Singh, risk management and computer systems consultant
92. J. Michael Springmann, attorney, former Foreign Service Officer, US Department of State
93. Douglas Sturm, Ph.D., university professor emeritus, Bucknell University
94. Marjorie Hewit Suchocki, Ph.D., theologian, author
95. Chuck Turner, Boston City Council
96. James W. Walter Jr., venture investor, philanthropist, founder of Walden Three
97. Dan Whaley, E-commerce pioneer, founder of GetThere.com, acquired for $750M
98. Burns H. Weston, J.S.D., Professor of Law Emeritus, Director, Center for Human Rights, U-Iowa
99. Howard Zinn, professor, historian, author, A People's History of the United States

Family Members
1. Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
2. Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
3. Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
4. Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
5. Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
6. Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
7. Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
8. Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
9. Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
10. Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
11. Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael D'Esposito, WTC, 96th floor
12. Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
13. Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC
14. Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
15. Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
16. Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
17. Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
18. Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
19. Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
20. Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
21. Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
22. John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
23. L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
24. Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
25. Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor
26. Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
27. Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
28. Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
29. Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
30. Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
31. Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
32. Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
33. Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
34. Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
35. Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
36. James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
37. David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan
38. Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC
39. Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor
40. Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer
41. Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
42. Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
43. Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2
44. Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
45. Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288
46. Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
47. David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
48. Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175

Late Signatories (starting toward 2000...)
1. Rita M. Haley, President, National Organization for Women, New York Chapter
2. Immortal Technique, Harlem-based hip-hop artist with Viper Records, Revolutionary I&II
3. Bob Kirkconnell, served in the U.S. Air Force 27 years, reaching the rank of Master Sergeant
4. Dennis Kyne, former Army air medic, 18th Airborne Corps during Gulf War I, musician, author, "Support the Truth"
5. Paul Landis, author, "Stop Bush Now!"
6. Eric H. May, former Army military intelligence officer and media essayist
7. Charles Shaw, Editor, Newtopia Magazine, National Peace Action Coordinator, National Green Party
8. Peter Erlinder, professor, William Mitchell College of Law, past-President National Lawyers Guild
9. Daniel Robert Rezac, 2004 Vice-Presidential Write-In Candidate, former Aviator & Armor Officer, Army National Guard, B.S.B.A.
10. Joel Horwitz, lost beloved cousin in WTC 1
11. Jessica Murrow, lost husband Stephen Adams, Beverage Manager, Windows on the World, WTC 1
12. Ellen Mariani, lost husband Neil on Flight 175
13. Jean Hunt, disabled survivor of Pentagon attack
14. Ralph & Brigitte Sabbag, lost son Jason in WTC 2

This is the 15th year that we have commemorated Sadako Peace Day in this beautiful garden created by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and La Casa de Maria.  It is a garden inspired by a young girl, Sadako Sasaki, who was two years old when she was exposed to radiation from the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.  Ten years later, Sadako succumbed to radiation induced leukemia. 

Today we join with the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and with people all over the world in remembering a somber and world changing day 64 years ago, when the first atomic weapon was used in warfare.  We learned, or should have learned, that one bomb can destroy a city, that no longer would any city on the planet be safe from the threat of annihilation, and that we had created weapons capable of destroying humankind.  This is a lot of information to take in, and I doubt that it has been fully absorbed by humanity even now.

Before she died, she inspired her classmates by her valiant attempt to fold 1,000 paper cranes – a symbol of long life in Japan.  Sadako wrote on the wings of one of these paper cranes: “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.”  Each year, students send colorful paper cranes that they have folded, some 10 million of them, to Hiroshima in honor of Sadako.  There is a statue of her with outstretched arms in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park.

The simple facts about the Hiroshima bombing are these:

1. The United States created a nuclear weapon and dropped it on the center of the city of Hiroshima;

2. Some 90,000 people died immediately;

3. By the end of 1945, some 140,000 people had died;

4. Most of the victims were civilians;

5. Initial survivors of the bombing, such as Sadako, have continued to die as a result of cancers and leukemias caused by radiation; and

6. The world was introduced to a new weapon capable of ending human life on our planet.

Of all the comments made in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, I find those of Albert Camus most insightful: “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery,” he wrote.  “We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests.”

Today we mark the 64th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I believe that humankind has survived for these past 64 years far more by good fortune than by the effectiveness of the theory of deterrence.  Accidents, miscalculations and miscommunications have brought us to the precipice of nuclear disaster on many occasions. 

What we don’t know is how long our good fortune of avoiding the use of these weapons can last.  Given the uncertainties of living in a world with more than 20,000 nuclear weapons, many on hair-trigger alert, we would be wise to move rapidly toward the global abolition of these weapons. 

To achieve this goal, only the US can lead the way.  This has been the position of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation for many years.  In March of this year, we delivered an Appeal to the White House with over 200,000 signatures calling for this leadership with a sense of urgency.

Needless to say, we were extremely pleased by President Obama’s speech on nuclear weapons delivered in Prague on April 5, 2009.  He demonstrated that he has a firm grasp of the problem.  “The existence of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War,” he said.  “No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light.”

President Obama did something startling for an American president.  He recognized the moral responsibility of the United States to act and lead “as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon.”  This is a great sign of hope and promise. 

“I state clearly and with conviction,” President Obama said, “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  More hope, but hope tempered with a call for patience: “I’m not naïve,” he said.  “This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime.”  The President is a young man, and we wish him a long life, but nuclear dangers require of us a sense of urgency.

What might the President do to express this sense of urgency?

First, visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just as he visited concentration camps in Europe.  Be the first US President to take this step.  Make the threat of nuclear war, nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation vivid to people everywhere.

Second, direct our negotiators to be bold in agreeing to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the US and Russian arsenals, to de-alert these arsenals and to declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons.

Third, assure that the new US Nuclear Posture Review gives an accurate assessment of the risks of continuing to rely upon nuclear deterrence and the benefits of moving rapidly to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.

Fourth, convene the leaders of the world to negotiate a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

It has recently been announced that President Obama will personally chair a meeting the heads of state of United Nations Security Council members on nonproliferation and disarmament this fall.  This is real cause for hope.

But we can expect opposition from those blind to the risks of continuing to threaten the use of nuclear weapons.  President Obama needs our support.  The world needs our engagement on this issue.

The most important thing we can do as planetary citizens is to pass the world on intact to the next generation.  Ending the nuclear weapons era is a responsibility we owe to the future.  We know you are here because you care.  Please continue to take a stand and speak out as if the very future of humanity depended upon what you do.  It does.  The President needs your support and so do the children of the future.

----------------------------------

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a councilor on the World Future Council.

Click to watch Marianne’s commentary about the legislation Marianne's comments about the legislation. If it sounds like a good idea to you, make a constituent call to your member of the US House of Representatives and say you want him or her to support legislation to create a US Department of Peace. To find your Congressperson or his or her contact info, visit www.congress.org

In a remarkable speech for any American leader, President Obama, speaking in Prague on April 5, 2009, provided new hope for a world free of nuclear weapons. "I state clearly and with conviction," he said, "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." He told his audience that America, as the only country to have used nuclear weapons, "has a moral responsibility to act."

For many years the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been calling for US leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world, based on the understanding that if the US does not lead, significant progress will not be possible. For the past two presidencies this leadership has been largely lacking. During the George W. Bush presidency, the US was the leading obstacle to nuclear disarmament. Now, with President Obama, there is a dramatic shift and the goal of US leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world that once seemed far distant, if not impossible, appears at hand.

President Obama's speech in Prague was a world changing moment, a promise of unprecedented historical change on the most profoundly dangerous issue confronting not only America but the world. In this speech he recognized the imperative for our common security of eliminating nuclear weapons and of America's unique moral responsibility to lead this effort.

He made it clear that while America cannot do it alone, it will lead by its actions. He called for "concrete steps," including reducing the role of nuclear weapons in US national security strategy and urging other nuclear weapons states to do the same, reducing the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, working aggressively for US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, seeking a new treaty to end production of fissile materials for weapons, strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty, creating an international fuel bank to reduce the risks of proliferation, assuring that nuclear weapons will not be acquired by terrorists, leading an international effort to gain control of vulnerable nuclear materials throughout the world within four years, and hosting a Global Summit on Nuclear Security within the year.

President Obama recognized that a world without nuclear weapons "will not be reached quickly." He cautioned that such a world may not occur within his lifetime, and that achieving it will require "patience and persistence." But this was not a speech about timeframes or deadlines. It was a speech setting forth a much needed vision and providing a promise of US leadership. He has taken an important step toward the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world by articulating this vision and committing to work toward it. Now a more comprehensive plan must be formulated and implemented.

With the political will that President Obama has provided, it is possible that we could move far more rapidly toward a world of zero nuclear weapons than could previously be imagined. Political will and US leadership have been the most significant missing elements for achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. Now that these elements are in place, we may be surprised by how quickly the planning and implementation process can proceed toward the total global elimination of these unconscionable weapons.

President Obama is a man of great vision, a leader that sees beyond the horizon. When he encounters a problem requiring change, he addresses it and proposes solutions. His leadership on the issue of a nuclear weapons-free world comes none too soon. In his speech, he has faced the threat of nuclear weapons squarely. The vision and the initial steps toward achieving it that he has articulated deserve our strong support.

As President Obama noted, there will be many who will say that it cannot be done. But these naysayers cannot steal the future from those who seek a world free of nuclear threat or those committed to building a world at peace. The President will need the American people standing with him and saying, "Yes, we can."

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

"It is well known that in times of economic difficulty violence increases. When relationships are strained by economic hardship, domestic violence, violent robbery and abuse of children and animals all increase. When the world is facing possibly the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression, now is not the time to ignore social issues and interpersonal relationships, now is the time to make special attention to make sure that our relations and health do not suffer along with your pocket books," stated Kucinich.

The Cabinet-level Department authorized in the legislation embodies a broad-based approach to peaceful, non-violent conflict resolution at both domestic and international levels. The Department of Peace would serve to promote non-violence as an organizing principle in our society, and help to create the conditions for a more peaceful world.

Peace is a foundational principle of this Congress and of this country. This bill gives it a chance to have an animating power in our civic life by addressing the issues of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the schools and racial violence.

If it sounds like a good idea to you, make a constituent call to your member of the US House of Representatives and say you want him or her to support legislation to create a US Department of Peace. To find your Congressperson or his or her contact info, visit www.congress.org.

You don't have to know who they are. The Creator does.

Just do this.

For a minimum of five minutes every day, meditate in the following way:

Pray that anyone even thinking of committing a terrorist act, anywhere in the world, be surrounded by a huge golden egg.

The eggshell is made of the spiritual equivalent of titanium. It is impenetrable. Any malevolent, hateful or violent thought that emanates from the mind of the terrorist cannot get past the confines of the eggshell. Before the violent thought can turn into violent action, it is stopped by the force of this meditative field.

Energetically, the terrorist is quarantined.

On the inside of the egg, see a shower of golden Light pouring from the eggshell into the heart and mind of the terrorist. Pray for your lost brother. See him or her being healed by the force of divine Love, wrapped in the arms of angels, reminded of who he truly is.

Five minutes. Every day. Tell everyone you know.

-----by Marianne Williamson

On November 7, 2008, at 9:45 am, I took a vow of non-violence in my thoughts, in my speech and in my actions. I, then, also had an opportunity to ask the almost 500 people attending the plenary session for the Alliance for a New Humanity in Barcelona if they would join me in this commitment.

I first asked them to close their eyes, put their awareness in their hearts and ask themselves honestly and seriously if they were willing to take a vow.

I told them that a vow is a sacred commitment from which there is no going back. It is like a child that is born, who cannot return to the womb.

I told them if they were ready to take this vow, they should stand up.

People stood up, one by one at first, then in groups of twos and threes, and finally in tidal waves, until more than 450 people had stood up and taken the vow.

Following this, everybody agreed to have at least two people in their lives take the vow. The two in turn, would have two others join them in taking the vow. Our immediate goal now is to get 100 Million people across the world to take this vow. In the meantime, we will be setting up ways to measure and support the dramatic effects this tidal wave of shift in consciousness is going to create.

Are you seriously committed to bringing about a world of peace, harmony, laughter and love by taking this vow and getting two people to join you?

If you are ready, go to deepakchopra.com and join me and others who are committed to non violence in our thoughts, speech and actions. You are welcome to pass the vow to your friends!

Love,
Deepak Chopra

-------------------

Yes we still can

The year is 2016. You glance at the television one morning and see President Obama having another of his many open press conferences. He has now been in office for almost 8 years. It has not been perfect, but things are so much better than when he took office in January of 2009. He still has that winsome smile that lights up a room and exudes the same passionate, positive energy that he emanated while campaigning back in 2008.

You feel deep gratitude for the past eight years and how things have unfolded. See it...Feel it...breathe it...Pass it on. Let us...remember... all of the wonderful reasons we appreciate this reality and our part in helping in creating it.

THE CHALLENGE:

Take 30 seconds right now. Close your eyes and imagine exactly what our country will feel like. Imagine successful diplomacy.

Imagine integrity in our government on all levels, and cooperation and wisdom in our Congress.

Imagine prosperity fully restored with our economy thriving and people fully employed.

Imagine the citizen groups, progressive populism, social justice, and the grassroots finding their voice.

Imagine windmills, solar energy and clean cars and new kinds of technology (that has been suppressed in the past.)

Imagine every child having equal education and opportunity.

Imagine every individual having health care.

Imagine the earth being healed and revitalized.

Imagine peace prevailing.

Imagine being very proud of our country and its leaders. Imagine whatever it is that draws you to support change. Imagine what your life will look like.

Just take 30 seconds daily. We can shift and change this country with positive visions just like this.

How does Sears treat its employees who are called up for military duty? By law, they are required to hold their jobs open and available, but nothing more. Usually, people take a big pay cut and lose benefits as a result of being called up. 

Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all called up reservist employees for up to two years. 

I submit that Sears is an exemplary corporate citizen and should be recognized for its contribution. I suggest we all shop at Sears, and be sure to find a manager to tell them why we are there so the company gets the positive reinforcement it well deserves. 

Decided to check this before I sent it forward. So I sent the following e-mail to the Sears Customer Service Department:

I received this e-mail and I would like to know if it is true. If it is, the Internet may have just become one very good source of advertisement for your company. I know I would go out of my way to buy products from Sears instead of another store for a like item, even if it's chea per at that store.

This is their answer to my e-mail:

Dear Customer:

Thank you for contacting Sears.The information is factual. We appreciate your positive feedback.

Sears regards service to our country as one of greatest sacrifices our young men and women can make. We are happy to do our part to lessen the burden they bear at this time.

Bill Thorn
Sears Customer Care
webcenter@sears.com
1-800-349-4358

Please pass this on to all your friends. Sears needs to be recognized for this outstanding contribution and we need to show them as Americans, we do appreciate what they are doing for our military!!!

It's verified ! By Snopes.com at:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/sears.asp

While much has been made of voter fraud issues over the last few days, the problem of election fraud is a much greater danger. Read on...

MW

Tribune Media Services

Peace is no more -- and no less -- than the audacity of sanity, reaching past the dubious geopolitics of national self-interest and standing, as Hank Brusselback did, underneath the ancient bridge in Esfahan, Iran, listening to the men who had gathered to sing.

It's called civilian diplomacy, and it is one way we will create the peace our leaders don't believe we're ready for.

"If the government isn't willing to talk to people, then the people need to be willing to (talk to each other)," Brusselback said. "It comes from a belief in the nature of security -- it's not about weapons, fear and posturing on the world stage. It's about communication, talking to people, everyone having their basic needs met. If you understood security that way, you'd see that security is about dialogue."

Mostly FOR has been about stopping war, something that may still seem like futility itself, but consider how futile it must have seemed in 1914, when the Great War started while an ecumenical conference among European clergy was being held in Switzerland to avert the outbreak of war. According to the FOR-USA Web site, two of the participants, Henry Hodgkin, an English Quaker, and Friedrich Sigmund-Schultze, a German Lutheran, upon meeting at a railroad station in Germany as they headed home, "pledged to find a way of working for peace even though their countries were at war."

This was a pledge of courageous determination, made to the future of the human race. The Fellowship of Reconciliation was founded out of this pledge a few months later, in Cambridge, England; and in 1915, a second fellowship was established in the United States. Throughout the 20th and into the 21st centuries -- for the first time in the long history of the human race -- humanity's passion for peace, justice and connectedness has had a permanent structure from which to challenge the short-sighted self-interest of governments, and their predilection to prepare for and wage wars.

And so, with the Bush administration in popularity freefall, its splendid little war in Iraq having run aground, many Americans have been eying its hollow belligerence toward Iran with acute nervousness. But some have decided to be pre-emptive themselves, rather than simmer in their anger and helplessness.

"Our determination was to do something different than go out in the streets, which we did for Iraq," Brusselback told me. "We wanted to give a message to Iranians -- to let them know there are lots of us here who believe in peace."

This, as I say, is the audacity of sanity, and a sign that the world is changing, the war paradigm is shifting. The May delegation, which consisted of 21 U.S. citizens, was the seventh that FOR-USA has sent to Iran in the last three years. The delegates talked to religious leaders (including Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians as well as Muslims). They toured the country.

"We wore pins, written in Farsi: 'We are part of a peace delegation,'" Brusselback said. "And (people) just had this big, warm smile. They wanted to give us hugs and shake our hands. 'We love Americans!' They told us that day after day."

They also talked to people about the complexity of life in Iran. The country has plenty of problems. People rolled their eyes when talking about President Ahmadinejad, especially his Holocaust-denial posturing. And, yeah, Iran has laws "about all kinds of things that really get in your face personally, especially women," he said. "Morality police. No makeup, can't show legs or hair. (Some people) struggle to push the edges. They're brave. They risk arrest."

But ladies and gentlemen, none of this is fodder for war. The highest order of ignorance is required before airstrikes, and the slaughter of these warm, courageous people, can be condoned.

Brusselback talked about his wife's experience in historic and beautiful Esfahan, when she found herself amid a group of schoolchildren in Imam Square. "The teacher asked who she was," he said. "Then all the children introduced themselves to her one at a time, each saying a phrase in English. It brought tears to her eyes."

He also talked about coming upon a group of men who had gathered under Esfahan's 300-year-old bridge to sing, because the echo there was out of this world. As he stood listening, one of them struck up a conversation. "So you're from the U.S.," the man said. "Do you think we're terrorists?"

If we know enough we'll never go to war again. This is globalization that matters.

- - -

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.

© 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Designing and developing weapons of mass annihilation should not be business as usual, especially for a great university. And yet, for the UC, it is business as usual. Since the beginning of the Nuclear Age, the UC has been in the business of providing management and oversight to the nation's principal nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The UC is now in that business with corporate partners such as Bechtel.

Your involvement with the weapons labs is arguably illegal under international law, is certainly immoral and, from a security perspective, perpetuates US reliance on nuclear weapons, which undermines US and global security. It also sends exactly the wrong message to the young people who are educated at the University of California. It suggests to them that it must be acceptable to create weapons capable of destroying civilization when a great university engages in doing so.

The UC shares in the responsibility for creating all nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. Should these weapons ever be used, by accident or design, the responsibility and accountability for that use will rest not only upon decision makers in the US government, but upon the UC system – including upon those who remained indifferent or apathetic in the face of the UC oversight of the weapons labs.

The most important thing that can be said about nuclear weapons is that they do not and cannot protect their possessors. By continuing to rely upon these weapons, a prospect furthered by the nuclear weapons laboratories, the US upholds nuclear double standards that encourage nuclear proliferation.

I suggest to you that a day will come when the UC will deeply regret having sold its good name to provide respectability to the creation and maintenance of nuclear weapons. In the interests of the UC and the country, I would urge you to take the following three actions:

First, support the Student Department of Energy Lab Oversight Committee, which has already demonstrated serious intent and done important research on the weapons laboratories and how their work negatively impacts national and global security.

Second, follow the example of the Norwegian government pension fund and divest the UC investment portfolio of corporations involved in creating nuclear weapons and their component parts.

Third, withdraw from the management and oversight of the weapons labs on the grounds of legality, morality and human security. By doing so, you would be setting an invaluable example for UC students and for institutions of higher education in our country and throughout the world.

Such acts of conscience by the UC Regents would help spark a national discussion on the need for US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). On July 17, 2008, members of the public were allotted one minute each to express their views in the public comment portion of the UC Regents' meeting.

The culture of war goes quietly about its business. Last week, Congress fed it another $162 billion, perhaps with some nostalgia: This was the final war-funding request of the Bush administration, the lame-duck, despised status of which making absolutely no difference in the dispatch with which the money was delivered.

Yes, there was some protest - 155 nay votes on the funding amendment, to 268 yea - and we can take a little wan heart in this trend, but the protest strikes me as largely symbolic. I fear that while the anti-war-funding contingent in Congress may want to be on record as morally correct, it understands that the war is inevitable and cannot be opposed in some structural and career-endangering way.

This was evinced a few weeks ago by the cryptic words of House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), who, as reported on CQ.com, said that he "opposes giving any more funding for the war but felt he had a professional obligation to produce a bill that can pass."

The important message I have for this constituency, which I took away with renewed clarity and fervor from the conference I attended last weekend - "Building a Culture of Peace in the Heartland" - is that knowing what we're against is not enough, and at best will generate the occasional symbolic "nay" vote on some inevitable piece of war legislation.

This was the Midwest regional gathering of an organization called the Peace Alliance, which was established four years ago to promote and lobby for what is currently known as HR 808, the House legislation that would establish a Cabinet-level Department of Peace and Nonviolence; it was first introduced by Dennis Kucinich in 2001 and currently has about 60 co-sponsors.

I whole-heartedly support this legislation, which among much else would establish a peace academy and coordinate and fund the best of the violence-prevention and restorative-justice/healing programs that are proliferating around the country, because it would bring a level of peace consciousness to our government that is currently absent. The legislation, I believe, would also help these disparate groups understand that each is part of a larger whole - a dawning global culture of peace.

Peace Alliance co-founder Marianne Williamson, who addressed the conference, illustrated the difference between being "against" (anti-war) and "for" (pro-peace) by talking about the two most significant documents of the nation's founding. "The Declaration of Independence," she noted, "states, 'we are not that' - a monarchy, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few. The Constitution states, 'We are this.' You need both," she said. "One is not enough."

Furthermore, unlike the Declaration of Independence, which denotes a single historic stance, the Constitution has been evolving for 200 years, adjusting to the contours of current events but more importantly expanding its protective reach as the nation has grown in awareness.

A culture of peace may one day simply be called a culture of common sense, but right now it's a radical leap in consciousness beyond the fear that continually fuels the culture of war and violence - the culture of us vs. them - which has exacted from the human race, over the last seven millennia or so, an ever-increasing share of its material and spiritual treasure and has set us on what Williamson called a "line of probability" that will culminate one day in environmental or nuclear catastrophe.

"It is the 11th hour, but it's not 11:59 quite yet," Williamson said. "There is still time."

Such was the urgency of this conference - an urgency, you might say, of joy and creativity. This is "deep democracy," she said. "Deep humanitarianism. Every time you teach a child to read you are a peace activist. The opposite of war is creation."

HR 808, and the subsequent numbers by which it will be known as it is reintroduced in congressional session after congressional session for years if not decades to come, is a small but crucial component of this paradigm shift in human consciousness.

I'm positive that one day we'll figure it out: Every dollar spent on human betterment and nonviolent conflict resolution yields returns that are almost incalculable. Every billion poured into the chasm of war is lost forever.

- - ------------------------------------------

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.

© 2008 Tribune Media Services, Inc.