NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-808

My personal take: What are they smoking?

Yours?

...I'll tell you whats wrong with that link. Its dead!
-No. Its just resting.

It's pretty much idiotic. Somebody's bizarre mental masturbation.

...I'll tell you whats wrong with that link. Its dead!
-No. Its just resting.

Now it works

Looking at it, my brain is thinking "Kellogg-Briand" :)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-808

My personal take: What are they smoking?

Yours?

Peace and Nonviolence? How horribly unamerican! :p

So this is going to do the job of the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Peace?

Peace and nonviolence? That's a terrible idea. Peace and nonviolence have no place in American society!


lawl

Well, we've had War Departments before, maybe we should just give peace a chance... You know, change of pace for once.

Why not?

Seriously, why not? All the OP offers is a "What are they smoking" platitude, and no sensible explanation as to why this dupposedly is a far-fetched and downright ludicris idea.

So let me repeat myself: Why not?

So this is going to do the job of the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Peace?

Exactly what I was thinking ::shudder::

First of all, we don't need to expand the Government further. It's already gargantuan. How much higher would you like your taxes raised?

Also, the idea of enforcing peace seems too much like control of the masses by... you guessed it... force. That right there causes a contradiction.

Sections 102 and 104 are the ones that I can see ultimately becoming problematic. The words "endoctrination" and "propaganda" come to mind for me.

Well, if the framers (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance76.html)of the US constitution were able to consider it, then it should at least give it some credibility to the 'what are they smoking' nay-sayers. Nevertheless, I think in this day and age, such an entity is very much desirable. War should only be a last-resort option.

I just noticed something else. Look at what would be transferred to the control of this new Department:

SEC. 202. TRANSFERS.

There are hereby transferred to the Department the functions, assets, and personnel of--

(1) the Peace Corps;

(2) the United States Institute of Peace;

(3) the Office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs of the Department of State;

(4) the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and

(5) the SafeFutures program of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice.

They want to put Gangs/juvenile delinquents under the same auspices as international security...? Is it just me or does it seem like a hodgepodge?

They want to put Gangs/juvenile delinquents under the same auspices as international security...? Is it just me or does it seem like a hodgepodge?

i know it sounds crazy, but when you seek to promote nonviolence and peace, there is no principled distinction to be made over where it happens

Dennis Kucinich is a wacko.

Why not?

Seriously, why not? All the OP offers is a "What are they smoking" platitude, and no sensible explanation as to why this dupposedly is a far-fetched and downright ludicris idea.

So let me repeat myself: Why not?

Why would we pay money to people to tell us how to not do something? It is pretty easy to sit at home. What will they do? Advise us not to go to war every time there is the possibility of conflict? That is the DOD's job. You can pay somebody a nickel for that advise.

Why don't we go one step further and have a Department of Human Rights? I read through the bill and its functions seems to be mostly about protecting people's human rights in specific areas. Why don't we have a dedicated Human Rights Watchdog (and hope that succeeding administrations don't make it into the Ministry of "Love" in the Orwellian sense.)

Why don't we go one step further and have a Department of Human Rights? I read through the bill and its functions seems to be mostly about protecting people's human rights in specific areas. Why don't we have a dedicated Human Rights Watchdog (and hope that succeeding administrations don't make it into the Ministry of "Love" in the Orwellian sense.)

ACLU does that for free.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-808

My personal take: What are they smoking?

Yours?

Well, when there a memos floating around FBI offices declaring that MLK will "abandon his supposed 'obedience' to 'white liberal doctrines' (non-violence)" and embrace some monolithic evil, and that at the same time "[i]t should be possible to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them," we need a change of pace.

ACLU does that for free.

The ACLU has a very limited means. It can only sue in courts to obtain a redress of grievances (which will take at least 7 years before the final decision is handed down and they can move on to another case).

The ACLU has a very limited means. It can only sue in courts to obtain a redress of grievances (which will take at least 7 years before the final decision is handed down and they can move on to another case).

When they make offenses public they usually go away quickly. A case where the NYPD was publishing some records that shouldn't have been published comes to mind.

Well, if the framers (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance76.html)of the US constitution were able to consider it, then it should at least give it some credibility to the 'what are they smoking' nay-sayers. Nevertheless, I think in this day and age, such an entity is very much desirable. War should only be a last-resort option.

Amongst other things, we already have a branch of the government that deals with other states in a non-violent fashion, the State Department. A Department of Peace would be a massive redundancy.

Further, Rush would also argue that it's impossible to have morality without a belief in God. That belief is clearly reflected in Rush's proposal for a Department of Peace, which he proposed would propagate a Christian religion in the United States. His conceptualization of a DoP is fundamentally different from the Kucinich conception. So much so, that I would argue they aren't even worth comparing, their only similarity being in name only.

How much higher would you like your taxes raised?

I could live with higher taxes; Though I'd rather see less waste, better prioritizing and more efficiency.

Why would we pay money to people to tell us how to not do something? It is pretty easy to sit at home. What will they do? Advise us not to go to war every time there is the possibility of conflict? That is the DOD's job. You can pay somebody a nickel for that advise.
See? Was that so difficult?

...though you don't make much sense in my mind, at least it's better than a simple "what were they smoking".

So your only real opposition is that one of the areas under the new department would be corresponding to one of the areas already covered by another, seeing as it's also the job of for example the DOD to "to tell us how to not do something", as it were. Or the DOJ, for that matter. Or many other departments.

And as I see it, they would actively work to promote peaceful sulutions, something which is not high on the agenda of the DOD today. To set up strategies and training for postconflict reconstruction and demobilization is one of the thigs that the US has sorely lacked in Iraq, for example, as is the (currently non-existing?) training of civilian peacekeepers.

Mind you, I'm not saying it should be done, but come on, if you (as the OP) are going to criticize the idea you should at least make a serious effort. Or else this thread is just a waste of time and space.

Dennis Kucinich is a wacko.

Isn't it great? :)

Isn't it great? :)
I didn't think he was your kind of wacko.

This really is a dumb idea though. You don't stop a rapist by giving in to his demands and you don't solve international conflicts by bending over backwards to the whim of 3rd world dictators or domestic conflicts by asking nicely that theives stop stealing and murderers stop killing.

Amongst other things, we already have a branch of the government that deals with other states in a non-violent fashion, the State Department. A Department of Peace would be a massive redundancy.
There is also a federal US Institute of Peace, which would also become redundant, too. However, I still think there is a difference between the aims of a department of Peace (theoretically) and the department of State, and it also seems that peace hasn't been particularly high on the agenda of the State department either. To me, the State department deals with other states, period. Any department of Peace wouldn't directly do that at all, like the Department of Defence.

Further, Rush would also argue that it's impossible to have morality without a belief in God. That belief is clearly reflected in Rush's proposal for a Department of Peace, which he proposed would propagate a Christian religion in the United States. His conceptualization of a DoP is fundamentally different from the Kucinich conception. So much so, that I would argue they aren't even worth comparing, their only similarity being in name only.
I mentioned that purely because people were simply dismissing it as stupid immediately, when it has in fact already entered debate before in US history.

Cool.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-808

My personal take: What are they smoking?

Yours?

Embrace the peace, DUDE!

(Offers drugs and a free trip to California)

My personal take: PEACE = GOOD.