veiled4allah: Imagine the America you want to live in #9 veiled4allah: Imagine the America you want to live in #9All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
(no pings yet)The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 09, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: dialogue. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: department peace, homeland security, dept peace, rather see, child abuse, department, peace, Department, Peace, dop, DoP, under, Pipes, good, government, pipes, Cabinet, cabinet, world, different, State, people, things, state, think
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
To read the rest of this series, see Imagine the America You Want to Live in.
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with dialogue
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: dialogue
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: dialogue
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: dialogue
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: dialogue
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: dialogue
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: dialogue
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title imagine the america you want to live in #9 (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) dialogue (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
Background and information on the Department of Peace is available here.I would rather see our money spent on education, health care, and aid to the poor than on the military, and I would rather see a Department of Peace than a Department of Homeland Security.
Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
Frankly, I would rather see a department of Non-Religion so that we may root out the cause of terrorism in this country: the blind adherance to ANY religion...Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
How would you balance this with the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion?Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
Like your original question, I'm obviously just fantasizing about the perfect world. A world of agnostics would, I believe, be a far gentler and civilized place...Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
Of course, knowing human nature, agnosticism would become yet another religion, with it's moderates, capital-A fundos, progressives, reformists, etc....Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
So if we had a Department of Peace, would Daniel Pipes now be in the Cabinet?Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
I should certainly hope not! Brian, you know that was not my intention in posting this.Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
True, but the Pipes nomination is the first thing my cynical mind thinks of when people raise this issue. Despite my liberal political leanings, I'm always a little leery of uncertainly defined government expansion, because in the end you never know who might be exercising the power. Hence, the Department of Justice means one thing under John Ashcroft, and another thing in other hands. Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Pipes see themselves as fighting for peace and justice just as much as Kucinich does. In the end, such as department might function as a banner saying "this is important," but I just don't see it making that much difference.Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
Thanks for a more serious response. Those are good points, worth thinking about. I wonder if the Department of Homeland Security could become a force for good under a more liberal Administration...Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
It is well-known what Pipes' view are: the civilization's enemy is radical Islam, and the West's best allies in the war against it should be the (truly) moderate Mulsims. One would think (based on the image of yourself and your convictions that you're trying to project here) that you'd have no problem with him being heard and listened to.But apparently not. I wonder why.
Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
I find Pipes to be a bigot who is more interested in controversy and confrontation than in peace. If that feeling on my part leads you to think that I must deep down be an Islamofascist after all, so be it.Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
Either that or clueless at the extreme. Whatever. So be it.Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
I agree that Pipes is only about 80% as bad as many people portray. I know there's one quote that circulates about being unprepared for "brown-skinned immigrants," or whatever, that was taken out of context, and when seen in context pretty clearly means that other people have those views, but he does not. However, his stands always seem functionally against Islamic institutions and the Islamic world, as when a New York Post opinion piece I once linked to seemed to suggest he wanted the military to topple the democratic government of Turkey, and he's suggested working with the MKO, which most people consider a terrorist organization. Such stands are, IMHO, opposed to the principles of a Department of Peace. (And sorry to al-Muhajabah for making this detour possible via my initial comment, but it seemed highly relevant when considering a Dept. of Peace to examine what is happening with existing government organs dedicated to that cause.)Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
My first thought was that it's an awfully Orwellian title!
But really, this is what the State Department is supposed to do--preserve peaceful relations with all other nations. Of course, what it's supposed to do and what it does have very little in common--sort of like the Department of Defense, which "defends" the country by stripping bare our ability to defend the US from attack in order to conquer various inoffensive foreign countries.
Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
To address the main point more directly, I think the idea of a Department of Peace has potential, but I'm not sure I buy the plans floating around. At the very least, I have some questions...1.) Creating a new agency is not creating a policy. I think too often, the Cabinet is used to provide a sop to interest groups. I have nothing against veterans, but is Veterans' Affairs really worthy of the highest level of departmental representation, or could it have stayed with DoD with no harm done? In the UK, the idea of a Cabinet developed out of the Privy Council: The PC got too big, so when the king wanted to get anything done, he met with the most important selected advisors and called it the Cabinet. However, peace certainly seems important, so again, I'm interested in the concept.
Organizationally is when things get hairy...
Saith Kucinich: "the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable'"
The first few things on that list are all presently under the Justice Department. Would moving them to a DoP mean they are no longer treated as crimes? And what role do we want the government to play in shaping public attitudes? Would there be government standards for what ideas community organizations can promote, and such? And the question looming over everything, is the good to be achieved enough to accept the fact than in U.S. politics this department will occasionally be headed by people whose choice of "cherished worldviews" to challenge might not always be what DoP supporters are thinking of.
On foreign policy, I've heard it linked to peacekeeping, disarmament, treaties and human rights. On the first, how would this supervisory capacity manifest itself in relation to DoD? What role would they play involving treaties? Admitting they have different focuses, how does the rest of the pie get divvied up with State? I'd grant all human rights to DoP, but the rest seems more difficult to manage effectively.
I guess what I'm saying is, it sounds like a good idea, but I'm just not sure the meat is there, and like I say, I want my government expansions done carefully.
Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
I'll just tack on something else: Establishing a DoP is creating an institution, not a policy. It reminds me a lot of the old line about creating a committee to study something: Politicians can say they took action, but little ever happens. And unlike a committee, the tools of an institution, without a clearly defined mandate (saith I as someone who was once asked to define "peace" for an undergrad course on "Revolution, War, and Peace"), are there to be picked up for whomever has their own use for them.Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
Thanks for your thoughtful contributions, Brian, and for bringing the discussion back to the original topic. Those are all good questions that will need to be addressed. Ken raised one as well that PG had asked before, regarding the State Department. This is where I think that the parallel to the Dept of Homeland Security is instructive. The DHS is an attempt to coordinate a variety of different existing agencies and organizations that have tasks related to homeland security but were not previously under one roof. The idea is that by bringing them together, a coherent homeland security policy can be developed instead of each agency going off in its different direction. The proposed Dept of Peace seems to be something similar; it is not so much an agency covering new ground as an agency that coordinates a variety of different existing agencies and organizations that have tasks related to peace, diplomacy, non-violence and so forth. Again, the idea is that by bringing these different agencies and organizations together under one roof, a coherent policy can be developed in a way that is not possible today.I am certainly not an expert on the proposed Dept of Peace, and I share Brian's concerns that it could end up being something quite other than was intended. One question that I think is worth asking, though, is whether the Institute of Peace has done more good than the Pipes nomination has done harm. Overall, has this been a beneficial thing for us, even though some ill has come of it as well? Almost anything can be turned towards a wrong end; if we held back from doing things for fear that they would someday be twisted, we would end up never doing anything at all.
Subject: Re: Imagine the America you want to live in #9
What I'm asking about the reorganization is, what would it allow us to do that would be better than what we have now? With DHS, for example, we heard lots of stuff about intelligence sharing and related matters that would be easier if everything were in the same department.With DoP, I'm not hearing the same things, and I'm running up against the fact that some of these agencies are where they are now for good reasons. For example, in one specific plan, Kucinich's, arms control and treaties would go under DoP. Right now these are under State for the sound reason that they involve diplomacy with other nations. It's been said that war is diplo by other means, and I'd argue that peace creation has to have the same sort of framework. If you look at arms issues in the world, weapons are usually part of a larger framework of issues - this is certainly the case with North Korea, for example. If you put arms control under DoP, you take a huge chunk of our diplomatic business with it, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing that for a nebulous "peace" framework. In fact, doing so would leave State with so little to do, I'm convinced the better path here would be to change the policies which govern State's actions rather than suddenly have two negotiating bodies in the federal government, which would basically break down into a "we like the world" track and a "we're out for ourselves" track.
Domestically, things like child abuse and domestic violence are under Justice because they are seen as matters of law enforcement. I'm comfortable with that, too, especially when Justice frequently sees part of its mandate as crime prevention. What sorts of benefits can we get from moving them to DoP? Do the people working on preventing domestic assault really belong in the same department with those handling our diplomacy on the Korean peninsula? I understand the "conflict resolution" idea, but are these situations even comparable? And how might removing things like child abuse from DoJ complicate attempts to treat it as a crime, like kidnapping, for example?
What I'm left with wanting to send to DoP is the "peacemaking apparatus," much like DoD has the military. DoP could supervise the Peace Corps, USIP, inner city programs, possibly Americorps, and that sort of thing. This department would, however, be incredibly small, and I'm not sure it's really Cabinet-worthy if being a Cabinet-level department is going to continue to mean anything. But on the other hand, it could help promote those particular causes.