Dan Pallotta

2.27.2004

Friday, February 27, 2004

"Why in every age, must mother and child wait, wondering why the wise men are so long in coming?"

- Anonymous

2.26.2004

Thursday, February 26, 2004

This is something I read today in a wonderful book I read last year called, "Urgings of the Heart," by Wilkie Au and Noreen Cannon:

"For, in the words of a Jungian writer, 'The individual who can manage not to be psychologically infectious - that is, free of the unconscious necessity to project all of his inferior, dark qualities onto others or onto ideologies or causes - is the individual on whom the ultimate peace of the world rests.'"

I post it here because of a growing curiosity and inquiry on my own part as to what kind of a system it is that could deliver us from the dangerous path on which the world is headed. As I watch the Presidential debates I become more convinced that political leadership is not what will deliver us. I was reading something the other day by Merton in which he comments on the danger of mass movements, even if they be for peace. His thought was that small acts of humility, or small, spontaneous movements that never even rise to the level of the press are purer, and probably more liklely than the mass movement model to create meaningful transformation. The grand gestures toward peace always seem to lead to war. There is a lot of subtlety in all of these thoughts and that makes them very difficult. Great patience is required in an inquiry of this sort. For instance, if a person wants to make a difference in the world and believes he or she has great leadership qualities, what are the options? If the wisest teachers we know of tell us that political leadership is not the answer, and mass movements are not the answer, then what is? Individual integrity and responsibility? Ultimately, yes, but how does one spread that without creating a mass movement that has its own ideologies with which others may not agree and which therefore becomes a source of conflict in and of itself?

I don't know the answer, and that is a very frustrating place to be. We have to continue to inquire and we have to have some serious patience. Probably the biggest problems with mass movements for change are that they don't have the answer, but out of an unwillingness to be patient enough to wait for the real answer to reveal itself, they dive into action with flawed approaches, old approaches, that, time and time again, have only led to more conflict.

The thought today from "Urgings of the Heart" seemed to me to be very wise and very new.

2.25.2004

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

We have no Constitutional ammendment prohibiting the abandonment of the homeless. We have no Constitutional ammendment prohibiting the state from allowing children to go without healthcare or adequate nourishment or a proper education. We have no Constitutional ammendment prohibiting the purchase of the Presidency by special interests. But if President Bush has his way, we will have a Constitutional ammendment prohibiting two people who love one another from saying "I do." Banning gay marriages is a popular issue. Ending hunger and homelessness is not. The true definition of moral courage is to do what's right, even when it's not popular. So this banner the President is carrying under the guise of moral leadership is, in fact, nothing but moral cowardice.

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by the skeptics and the cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy

2.23.2004

Monday, February 23, 2004

Those of us who work in charity have an awesome, and almost impossible responsibility to demonstrate, as Gandhi said, "the change we wish to see in the world." I have seen first-hand how the very same driving forces that bring nations to war operate in the realm of charity. If we are different only in our rhetoric from those who would lead the world to war, then what good are we? Our best intentions will turn only to violence in the end, whether we set out to cure breast cancer together, or AIDS, or to stop war. Think of what great violence and hatred there is among supposed comrades even in the peace movement.

We are called to a higher ideal than this. We are called to rise above the seductive forces in our nature which tempt us toward hatred and judgment and gracelessness. But we have been given no special training. We grow up in the same culture as everyone else - the culture that teaches people aggression and competition and pride and ambition. Our task must be to rise above our lack of training and skill, no matter how difficult, no matter how many times we stumble. We must be committed to another way, no matter how long it takes us to find it. We must reach out to one another. We must help one another along in this great endeavor, for without each other we are nothing, and none of the high ideals to which we aspire can ever be realized. We must not give up, no matter how high this mountain. Better that we demonstrate a new way of human interaction in a failed attempt to cure disease than to cure the disease and end up enemies in the process. Our triumph would in fact be a failure, for we would only further the cause of inhumanity - the greatest disease of all.

These thoughts were inspired by words I read yesterday in Merton's "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander":

"The tactic of nonviolence is a tactic of love that seeks the salvation and redemption of the opponent, not his castigation, humiliation, and defeat. A pretended nonviolence that seeks to defeat and humiliate the adversary by spiritual instead of physical attack is little more than a confession of weakness. True nonviolence is totally different from this, and much more difficult. It strives to operate without hatred, without hostility, and without resentment. It works without aggression, taking the side of the good that it is able to find already present in the adversary. This may be easy to talk about in theory. It is not easy in practice, especially when the adversary is aroused to a bitter and violent defense of an injustice which he believes to be just. We must therefore be careful how we talk about our opponents, and still more careful how we regulate our differences with our collaborators. It is possible for the most bitter arguments, the most virulent hatreds, to arise among those who are supposed to be working together for the noblest of causes. Nothing is better calculated to ruin and discredit a holy ideal than a fratricidal war among 'saints.'"

2.22.2004

Sunday, February 22, 2004

This story in today's New York Times made me extremely sad. Sad because it reveals the fallacy of security by military build-up for what it is. Sad because the evidence is right in front of our very eyes and we will not see it for what it is. Sad because it speaks of the power of denial. The power of denial is winning over the power of love and the power of the human spirit.

Has not the objective of the military-industrial model been to make the world safer? Have they not told us that we have been spending all of this money because it would make the world safer? Read this with your eyes wide open and see how much less safe we have become:

"February 22, 2004, Security Efforts Turning Capital Into Armed Camp, By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 - An antiaircraft missile, ready for use, sits atop a federal office building near the White House. Devices that test the air for chemical and biological substances are positioned throughout the city. Subway stations are now equipped with "bomb containment" trash bins. A major highway that runs by the Pentagon is being rerouted several hundred yards away. A security wall is going up around the Washington Monument. Day by day, the nation's capital is becoming a fortress, turning a city known for graceful beauty into a virtual armed camp. In response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, federal security agents along with their counterparts in the Washington, Maryland and Virginia governments began a huge effort to build permanent safeguards for the capital area's most important buildings and monuments….But more recently, security efforts have gained a new urgency as officials seek ways to stop truck bombs and other terrorist tactics that have been used in other countries, like suicide bombers. Some of the biggest projects are under way at the most visible symbols of American democracy and might - the White House, the Capitol, the Washington Monument and the Pentagon. A result has been a surge of security construction at a cost, still being calculated, that is expected to reach several hundred million dollars within five or six years…'I'm not sure we ever reach a point where everything has been done; it's an ongoing process,' said Kenneth E. Wall, an official with the Department of Homeland Security who oversees activity in the capital region. 'As threats evolve and information evolves, we have to make adjustments accordingly.'

But even at this early stage, the security efforts have transformed large parts of Washington, creating a slightly ominous feel for the city's 572,000 residents and the million more people who work here and visit daily. Tony Bullock, an aide to Mayor Anthony A. Williams, called it 'the uglification of Washington.' …'It's sad to see this, but the reality is we are very vulnerable,' said Peter McBirnie of Huntsville, Ontario, who was visiting the Washington Monument the other day with his wife, Linda. They stood before temporary construction walls that encircle the monument grounds and obscure work on a new permanent 30-inch-high security wall designed to stop a vehicular attack."

That is the truth. We are more vulnerable. We're not safer. After trillions and trillions of dollars spent on a model that uses military might to make the world safer the results are in. The model doesn't work. The model makes the world more dangerous. You cannot achieve peace through the threat of violence.

What more evidence do we need? These are not safety measures. These are failure measures. Because if the model made us safer we wouldn't need them. The fact that we do only proves the catastrophic failure of the military solution.

How much sadder do we need to be made before we will listen?