I haven't read George Orwell's 1984 yet, but you can be damn sure I will after I mentioned this bill to Mike and he said "That sounds like the Ministry of Peace from 1984." It's only in committee, and apparently most bills never make it out of there. Here's hoping.
Some of my favorite parts:
Congress finds the following:
(1) On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously declared the independence of the 13 colonies, and the achievement of peace was recognized as one of the highest duties of the new organization of free and independent States. [Gee, and here I thought it was all about throwing off the yoke of tyranny and such. Silly me.]
(4) The Constitution of the United States of America, in its Preamble, further sets forth the insurance of the cause of peace in stating: `We the People of the United States, in Order to Form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.' [What was that part about 'provide for the common defense?']
(c) Mission- The Department shall--
(3) strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking;
[Ooh, this whole next paragraph really gets me:]
SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS.
(a) In General- The Secretary [head of the Dept] shall--
(1) work proactively and interactively with each branch of the Federal Government on all policy matters relating to conditions of peace;
(2) serve as a delegate to the National Security Council;
(3) call on the intellectual and spiritual wealth of the people of the United States and seek participation in its administration and in its development of policy from private, public, and nongovernmental organizations; and
(4) monitor and analyze causative principles of conflict and make policy recommendations for developing and maintaining peaceful conduct.
[That's a lotta stuff for one very peaceful dude to handle. I mean, he'd have to be the Peace-MASTER or something. Was anybody ever this peaceful? I dont think so. Jesus was never a delegate to the National Security Council. Woo PeaceGuy (or PeaceGirl)!
[Here we get to the real meat n' potatoes of this thing]
(5) analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns; [Bingo, we have a winner. Go ahead and toss out that 2nd Amendment, people. It's old news. Besides, who needs to defend themselves from a dictatorial government when its so darn PEACEFUL, man?]
(f) Educational Responsibilities- The Secretary shall--
(1) develop a peace education curriculum, which shall include studies of--
(A) the civil rights movement in the United States and throughout the world, with special emphasis on how individual endeavor and involvement have contributed to advancements in peace and justice; and
(B) peace agreements and circumstances in which peaceful intervention has worked to stop conflict;
(2) in cooperation with the Secretary of Education--
(A) commission the development of such curricula and make such curricula available to local school districts to enable the utilization of peace education objectives at all elementary and secondary schools in the United States; [You don't need P.E. anymore... You need Peace Classes... You are getting very sleeeeepy....][And here, the piece d'resistance]
(6) create and establish a Peace Academy, which shall--
(A) be modeled after the military service academies;
(B) provide a 4-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates will be required to serve 5 years in public service in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution; [I can see it now: hundreds of weeping hippies rubbing their freshly shorn heads, having older, jaded hipsters yelling something about 'PLEBES...' Everyone saluting that neato COEXIST flag that used to be a bumpersticker...]In conclusion, yes, here it comes: I, for one, welcome our new Peacful Overlords.
9 comments:
Since when is it uncool to support peace? i don't know about you, but i have never seen the reasoning in killing our own sons to achieve a goal. why is it crazy to want to preserve life? or are you one of those people who believe in population control? call me a hippie if you want, i could care less what a gun crazed, self-important war mongerer has to say when innocent people's lives are sacrificed daily.
don't ridicule people who are trying to make a positive change in the world, while you sit back and enjoy the freedom paid for with the blood of our soldiers. while i support the bravery to face death, i dont support the stupidity to seek it out when it is unnecessary.
You should update more often... it's stuff like this and the national ID card we need to keep an eye out for (by this way this is mike L.)
this is mike L again who is this other michael?
does it matter?
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
- Theodore Roosevelt
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done."
Ah, another Teddy Roosevelt quote. Let's look at another version.
From "Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910:
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm
out of context, but cute just the same. we are getting off topic. the point is, why do you oppose this bill so vehemently? what do you find offensive about the oppurtunity to save lives? if you weren't a resident of the greatest superpower on earth, i'm fairly confident you would feel differently. have you ever thought about how this bill will affect the rest of the world, or are you just concerned with america? but then, i'm sure no one has ever accused you of being too empathetic.
I don't see how you can claim that a different version of the same quote is out of context. But you're right, we are getting off topic. Firstly, I'd like to point out that this bill is only now entering committee, which is where bills are discussed, debated, language is changed, and more often than not, left to wither away. You'll see me become vehemently opposed to it when it becomes an item to be voted upon.
I'm sure it was introduced with the best of intentions. The way I see it, it's just another way for the government to intrude on our daily lives. Apparently we can't be trusted not to arbitrarily go around killing eachother, so why not create yet another government agency to solve the problem? Sorry, I'd rather do without.
That's a fundamental difference between yours and my political beliefs, I think.
I should ask you the same question regarding the rest of the world. What do you think will happen to those Iraqis who've helped to liberate their country if we pull out in '08 like the Democrats want? Will the Department for Peace and Nonviolence convince the various hostile countries and terrorist groups in the region not to tear the country apart and murder our allies there?
Oh, and one more thing: Your ad hominem attacks against me have been unwarranted and, so far, unreturned. Your profile remains unopened to the public in what I can only assume is a bid to remain anonymous while lashing out at those with opposing viewpoints. Therefore, I am no longer interested in your opinion.
Post a Comment