Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Has anyone read the book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee? I have been reading this book and it makes me sick to my stomach. For those of you haven’t read it, the book is about how Native American lands were stolen away from the Native Americans in the mid to late 1800’s. It is written from the perspective of the Native Americans. The book tells about the lies told to Native Americans, the treaties they were forced to sign, how the treaties were broken, and how the Native Americans were treated by the US Army (massacres, forced marches, killing of horses and livestock). What really gets me about how the US Army, farmers, miners, railroads, traders, etc treated the Native Americans was: each of these groups did their genocidal best to exterminate the Native Americans but then what did the white people do? We named our states for Native American groups or with Native American words. For example: Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Utah, Indiana, and Alaska. All of these states are Native American words or names. We named our cities after Native American groups, Native American leaders, or with Native American words. For example: Cheyenne, Omaha, Chicago, Detroit, Sioux Falls, Indianapolis, Tallahassee, Chattanooga, Mankato, Oglala, Manhattan, to name a few cities. I am sure there are many other examples of cities, most likely where Native Americans haven’t lived for a hundred or more years. We name our counties after Native American groups or names. For example in Iowa: Chickasaw, Kossuth, Winnesheik, Allamakee, Black Hawk, Pottawattamie to name but a few. We name our sports teams after Native American groups. The Fighting Sioux, the Fighting Illini, the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Washington Redskins, the New Hampton Chickasaws, the Chicago Blacj Hawks, etc. Apparently the Native Americans were not good enough to live near the white farmers, miners, and traders, but their words and names were good enough to use as state, county, city, and sport names. What a bunch of hypocrites we were and still are. What the US did 150 years ago to the Native American peoples is no different then what is happening in Darfur, Sudan. Or from what happened in Rwanda and Bosnia. If the United Nations had been around 150 years ago, the US would have been accused of genocide, and that is just what was happening. The government was giving its tacit approval and many times overt approval for the destruction and forced removal of Native American groups. Every American whose ancestors came to the US before 1890 has Native American blood on their hands.

What is Popular is not Always Right

Last week a judge in Nebraska tossed out a law that banned same-sex marriages. As could be expected the religious right-wing nut zealots went off the deep end. They accused the judge of judicial activism and legislating from the bench. The right-wing nuts claimed that the judge had no right striking this unfair law down because the law was the popular will of the people, therefore legal. Since it is the popular will of the people to discriminate against one group, the judge was not right in ruling the way he did. What these right-wing nuts don't seem to understand is that it is the judicial branch's job to strike down unfair laws. When the state or Federal legislatures pass and the governor or President signs discriminatory law, it is the judicial branch's job to rule the laws unconstitutional and thus unfair. "But it is the will of the people," the right wing nuts shout. Just because something is popular does not make it right. At this time in history, it is popular to discriminate against homosexuals. This does not make it right. At one time it was popular in the United States to keep Africans as slaves. Did this make slavery right? It was also popular to deny voting rights to women. Was this right? In Nazi Germany, it was popular to discriminate against Jews, steal their property, and send them to concentration camps. Was this right? It was the popular will of the people. At one time it was popular to deny voting rights to blacks. Was this right? Just because it is popular to discriminate does not make it right.

Now, what is right is not popular. It is the judge's job to decide if laws are fair or not. This is not activism. This is common sense. It is the judge's job to stop discrimination. The right wing nuts want the judicial branch to follow the popular will of the people. This would make the judicial branch irrelevant. Our country wouldn't need courts if laws were passed based on the popular will of the people. Courts have to make decisions based on right and wrong, fair and unfair, even if the decision is unpopular. That means banning discrimination against homosexuals.

What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular.

Founding Fathers not Christians

In last week’s edition of my local paper, a writer stated that “Our country was founded on Christian principals, most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were Christians”, however, the historical record does not bear this out. Here are some quotes from some of the men who had a hand in writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:

Thomas Paine , author of Common Sense, “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" It was during Washington’s administration that the Treaty of Peace and Friendship was written and it was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified it. In the Treaty it states in Article XI "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States, in a letter to John Adams dated April 11, 1823 - "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

James Madison, 4th President of the United States, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Eathan Allen, hero of the American Revolution, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."

Ben Franklin, helped write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now.."

As you can clearly see, many of the Founding Fathers did not support the Christian Religion. It is a patently untrue when conservatives and the religious right claim the United States was founded on Christianity and that the Founding Fathers were Christians. A trip through the historical archives and writings of these men disprove this. I believe the Founding Fathers would be horrified and dismayed at the blatant use and disuse of their names in support of the religious rights agenda.

Matthew 23:23-28 Revelant to Today

I received this interesting Bible verse from a website I have joined. If you change the words a bit it has immense relevance to the President and his conservative cronies. Here is the verse Matthew 23: 23 – 28.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Now if you replace the words scribes and Pharisees with President and conservatives it is a much better passage and much more relevant to out world today. It really is kind of fun to see and make the Bible relevant to today. I agree with the religious right who say the Bible is as relevant today as it was when it was written.

Here is the new updated Bible verse for today:

Woe to you, President and conservatives, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! "Woe to you, President and conservatives, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind President first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean. Woe to you, President and conservatives, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Hypocrisy Update

When I wrote yesterdays article I used some outdated information. Today on NPR I heard that the Democrats had approved 205 of Pres. Bush's judicial nominations and had blocked 7. That is still a better approved to blocked ratio than the Republicans accorded Pres. Clinton.

Conservative Hypocrisy

I have come to the realization that Republicans in both the House and Senate are a bunch of hypocrites. For the past several weeks the Senate Republicans have been squawking about judicial nominations and how the Democrats are going to use the filibuster to block Pres. Bush’s nominations. The Senate Republicans are threatening to use the so-called “nuclear option”, which, if used, will effectively blow-up the Senate. The ‘nuclear option” is what the Republicans are planning to use to change the rules of the Senate to block filibusters. Instead of 60 votes needed to end a filibuster, the Senate would only need a simple majority to cut off debate and have a vote. The Republicans would be able to approve the nominations of Pres. Bush’s activist judges. The Senate Republicans have been saying for weeks that the Senate Democrats have been blocking Pres. Bush’s nominees with just cause.

I did a little research and discovered that the Democrats have only blocked 3 nominees from reaching a vote, whereas they have allowed 173 nominations to be voted on. During the Clinton administration, the Senate Republicans blocked 60 of Pres, Clinton’s judicial nominations. The Senate Republicans used the same tactics the Democrats are now using. The Senate Republicans used the filibuster to great affect, blocking 60 nominations. Now the Republicans are screaming foul because the Democrats don’t care for 3 activist judges. Talk about being hypocrites.

The President and the Republicans have been hollering about judicial activism by liberal judges, yet, their goal is to nominate and gain approval for judges who are equally as activist, just activist for the conservative agenda. The Republicans are up in arms over the Teri Schiavo fiasco. They are accusing the State and Federal judges of being activists and not accepting the conservative argument about Schiavo parents needing more time to appeal. Even though it was a conservative Federal judge appointed by, none other than Ronald Reagan, who squashed all the appeals by the parents. In essence he said, there were no more legal paths for the parents. They had lost consistently over the course of 10 years and they were at the end of the road. The courts were consistent in their rulings, liberal minded judges as well as conservative minded judges.

I guess activism is all in the eye of the conservative. If the judge doesn’t support your point of view, or decides a case different than how you wanted, that judge is an activist and as Tom DeLay has said, “should be impeached.” The Republicans and their conservative supporters are hypocrites. The same arguments they are using against Democrats and liberal judges can be used against them. It is too bad our President and his cronies are “diviserators” and not “unificators”.

The Gospel of Thomas

A couple of weeks ago and friend and I went to a lecture by Elaine Pagels on the Gospel of Thomas. Pagels is a leading scholar of the Gospel of Thomas. It was a very enlightening lecture. The Gospel of Thomas more or less says that to get to know God all you have to do is look around you. God is in everything and God is inside you.

Thomas 3 - Jesus said "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say, 'It is the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather the kingdom is inside you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you will dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

This verse is pretty radical thinking. If God can be found inside of you and all around you, and that we are all the sons of the living father, do we need Jesus? The author of the Gospel of Thomas seems to be saying that Jesus was a mortal man and that we are all sons of God.

Thomas 70 - Jesus said, "That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from yourselves. That which you do not have within you will kill you if you do not have it within you."

Faith and the divine power are inside of you. You have to look and find. The way to be saved and to know God is to find it inside of you.

Thomas 77 - Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there."

Here Jesus is saying that he is the Light of the World but that light is everywhere. Look under a stone and what do you find? The Light of the World, God. From Jesus, i.e. God, did everything come (the Light). Jesus was at the beginning and he is here now, in and around everything.

Thomas 113 - His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" Jesus said, "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

Again Jesus is saying that God and the kingdom of God is already here on earth. Waiting for the kingdom to come is fruitless. It is already here but we are too blind to see it.

The author of the Gospel of Thomas is saying that access to God is through your own actions and experiences. You don't need Jesus or the Church to find God and the divine. The Good News is not only about Jesus but also you and I. We are all sons of the living father. We are all divine. We are all like God.

This idea, that God is inside of us and all around us, and that we can know God on our own, must have been quite threatening to the early Christian church. If the populace could know God on there own, why would they need the church and the church leaders? It is for this reason that many of the early Christian writings were deemed heretical and burned. The early church didn't want anything suggesting there was a different way to believe than what they were preaching.

Thankfully, the Coptic monks in Egypt refused to obey the order to burn the "heretical texts". It is through their actions that these texts are still in existence and are being studied. A wealth of new ideas and knowledge about early Christianity is coming to light because of these monks. The monks should be connsidered heroes for their actions.

Personally I enjoy reading about and learning about these texts. It gives me a new perspective on Christianity and spirituality that is not available in the mainstream churches. I wish some of the thoughts and ideas expressed by these early Christian writers would find their way into the mainstream. I doubt that will happen. The church today, as in the past, will do what it can to keep its grip on power. If we can find our way to God without the church, the church would cease to exist. No church will let that happen.

I think modern Christianity needs a shake up. I think modern Christianity is a serious state of malaise and has the doldrums. The Church has become stagnant. There have been no new ideas about God and Jesus for 1700 years. 1700 years ago at the meeting in Nicea all dissent in the western Church was crushed. Instead of 50 or so additional writings and Gospels added to the Bible to create the New Testament, a paltry 4 Gospel were added. Now these other writings that never made are coming to light.

These writings could go a long ways towards shaking up Christianity. Many people, I believe, are like myself. We are dissatisfied with current religious teaching. We have a hard time feeling like we belong. We don't feel connected to the church. The Gospel of Thomas gives us a new way to think about God and spirituality. I believe if the Church wants to gain and keep membership, the Church needs to go outside of accepted beliefs and teachings and explore other points of view.

Teri Schiavo

Over the weekend the Congress in Washington got involved in something they had no business getting involved in. Congress passed a law and the President signed. The law is intended to keep Teri Schiavo alive. Even though her expressed wish, which was entered into evidence at trial, to not be kept alive with atrificial means. Congress has over stepped its authority in passing this law. The Framers of the Constitution created the separation of powers to keep Congress from doing what it did. The Judiciary is the only place where individual matters can be settled. Congress sets broad policy not individual policy. The Florida courts decided on 3 occasions that the feeding tube could be removed, yet on 2 occasions, the Florida State legislature and then the US Congress passed laws in the atteempt to stop Teri's wish from being fulfillled. This is blatant meddling. Fortunately the Florida Supreme Court declared the Florida law unconstitutional. Hopefully the Federal courts will declare the Federal law unconstitutional also.
The President and Congress both have said that Teri deserves to live yet they are ignoring her expressed wish. She told people on two occasions that she would not want a feeding tube. It is time to let this woman die with dignity.
There was a time when Republican thought the government should stay out of individual citizen's business. Yet here they are interfering with the wishes of this woman. President Bush rails against activist judges, yet when a judge consistently rules that the wish of the husband and Teri should be honored, he signs legislation put forth by an activist congress to prevent this.
The President says judges need to ere on the side of life, yet how many deathrow inmates did he put to death in Texas? Perhaps the President needs to ere on the side of life. How many US soldiers have died in Iraq? Did the President ere on the side of life when he didn't plan for post-war Iraq? It would seem the President only eres on the side of life when it is politically convenient for him to do so. Let's do away with abortion and stop the wishes of a person who said she would prefer to die, but let's keep the death penalty. Let's keep sending our young men and women to Iraq without proper equipment and training. The President is trying to have it both ways. He gives lipservice to life only when it is politically safe for him to do so. It is really too bad that 51% of the people who voted couldn't have ered on the side of common sense and voted for John Kerry.

Statement by Representative James A. Leach

Peace Corps: A Model for Hope
Statement by Representative James A. Leach
Before the House of Representatives
March 10, 2005

Mr. Speaker:

I would like to take a moment to recognize that last week was National
Peace Corps Week and to applaud the thousands of Americans who have
represented the U.S. since 1961 in the Peace Corps in 138 countries.
Emblematic of the idealism of America are the 15 volunteers from my
district in Southeast Iowa who are currently serving on four continents, in
desert villages, mountain towns and city centers from Ukraine to Panama and
Morocco.

A Peace Corps volunteer is charged with three missions: the first is to
help the people of host countries in meeting their need for trained
professionals; the second is to help promote understanding of America
around the world; and the third is to help expand American understanding of
other peoples and countries.

Thus, the job of the Peace Corps volunteer is not over when their
assignment is completed.  Volunteers maintain a duty to share their grasp
of the people, the language and the culture of the countries in which they
served.

Not long ago, in a speech at Yale University, the first Peace Corps
Director, Sargent Shriver, declared that he wanted to add a fourth goal: to
"bind all human beings together in a common cause to assure peace and
survival for all."

No mission is more altruistic; nor more consequential.  Geopolitical
realists might consider such majesty of purpose to be naïve.  Actually,
there is no rational alternative in a world where history has known few
generations unaffected by the strife of war; where the creation of weapons
of mass destruction has increased the vulnerability of the human race.  As
Einstein noted, splitting the atom has changed everything except our way of
thinking.  It is the capacity to think that, at its best, characterizes
mankind, but, at its least impressive, has yet to be harnessed in such a
way as to give confidence that modern man can live with modern technology.

In this context of concern for the common fate of all mankind, the Peace
Corps stands out as the singular institution in American society that
provides a model for hope and a cause for optimism.

The Soweto Gospel Choir

On Saturday, my wife and I went to a performance of the Soweto Gospel Choir. It was wonderful experience. The concert was a mix native South African and traditional gospel songs. The group also threw in some South African hip hop. The performers were dressed in mostly traditional costumes. Bright colors and patterns. Not only was it a superb listening experience, but visually it was stunning. The performers sang and danced happily across the stage. It was a delight to see and hear. The performers sang in 6 of the 11 national languages of South Africa. We may not have been able to understand what they were singing but you could feel the power of the performers beliefs. It was awe inspiring to see the way the performers’ faces lit up as they sang and praised God. You tell they truly believed what they were signing about.

As I watched the performance I couldn’t help think how different a church service in South Africa must be compared to one in the United States. I can’t imagine any Lutheran or Catholic service to be as active and as colorful as what we witnessed on Saturday. I can’t imagine any American church allowing any such carrying on. It was truly inspirational to see the performers. They had a childlike quality to them. You could see they truly felt the presence of God. It has been a long time since I have been inspired when I have been in church. Perhaps if more American churches had services like the one on Saturday, more young people would be willing to come to church. I believe, that when people go to church, they want to be inspired. If churches were to incorporate more things like dancing and more gospel music, more people would attend.

I have been to several African church services when I was in the Peace Corps. I went an Easter service near Torodi, Niger, I went a service in Bamako, Mali, and a service in Ho, Ghana. At each service, the energy that filled the church was overwhelming. It was obvious that the people were filled with the spirit. I wish I felt that kind of energy in the churches here in the United States. It sure would make church feel less stuffy and I might enjoy going more.

A Modern Parable

An interesting thing happened in church on Sunday. The pastor was reading the Gospel for the day. It was John 9:1 – 41. This Gospel is the story of how Jesus made a blind man see. After his sight was restored the man went to the temple to talk to the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked the man several times how his sight was restored. Each time, the man said Jesus had restored his sight. The Pharisees asked the man’s parents if he was their son and how he got his sight back. Eventually the Pharisees threw the man out of the temple because the Pharisees wouldn’t accept that the man was sin free.
The story reminded of the events that lead up to the current war in Iraq. Iraq plays the part of the Blind Man. Jesus is played by the United Nations. George Bush plays the Pharisees. The Rest of the World plays the Blind Man’s Parents.

Pharises: Where are your weapons of mass destruction?

Blind Man: I don’t have any weapons of mass destruction. I got rid of them long ago.

Pharisee: I know you have weapons of mass destruction. You have not been truthful with us.

Blind Man: Really. I don’t have any. Ask Jesus.

Jesus: I have been with the man for 10 years. I have found no weapons of mass destruction.

Pharisee: I don’t believe you. My intelligence people tell me you have weapons of mass destruction.

Blind Man: You can ask my Parents. I don’t have weapons of mass destruction.

Pharisee: Parents, how can the Blind Man not have weapons of mass destruction? I know he is lying and hiding the weapons. Will you help me find the hidden weapons?

Parents: No, we will not help. We do not believe that he has any. Jesus has told us the blind man does not have weapons. Jesus has searched and he hasn’t found any weapons.

Pharisee: I do not believe you or the Blind Man. If the Blind Man does not let me search his house, and if the Blind Man does not show me where he is hiding the weapons of mass destruction, I will throw him out of the temple and take over his land.

Blind Man: Please, I beg you, do not throw me out. I don’t have any weapons.

Pharisee: I know you are lying. My spies know you have hidden your weapons of mass destruction. You will not get another warning. Let me in and show me your weapons or we will force our way in.

Parents: You cannot do that. It is against the law.

Pharisee: I can do whatever I want. I know the Blind Man has broken the law and I have proof he is hiding weapons of mass destruction. I don’t care what Jesus says or what his parents say. I will find his weapons of mass destruction.

Parents: Show us the proof.

Pharisee: After I have broken into his house and found the weapons, I will show them to you.

Parents: We will not help you. What you are doing is illegal.

Blind Man: Please don’t do this. I have no weapons of mass destruction. Jesus has been here and he has seen my house. He knows I have no weapons. You must believe him.

Pharisee: I do not believe him. I do not trust him. You are lying. You are hiding your weapons. I will not warn you again. Your time has run out.

And so, the Pharisee and his zealots broke into the Blind Man’s house. They searched and searched and searched for the weapons of mass destruction. After about 2 years of searching for the weapons, the Pharisee had to admit that he was no longer looking for weapons of mass destruction because they couldn’t find any. The Pharisee said the real reason for breaking into the Blind Man’s house was to throw him out because he was a bad man and that his parents are better off without him.

Isn’t it a little ironic that the President, who professes to follow the teachings of Jesus and to be a Christian, chooses instead to act like the Pharisees?

Deaf History Month

Each year from March 13 to April 15 deaf people across the United States celebrate Deaf History Month. Deaf History Month is a time for deaf people to celebrate and remember the major events, the major accomplishments, and the influential people in the Deaf community of the United States.
Deaf History Month begins on March 13th. March 13th is the anniversary of when Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. named its first deaf president. Gallaudet University was established in 1864, but it wasn’t until 1988, 124 years later that Gallaudet University had its first deaf president. Gallaudet University is the only university in the world for deaf and hard of hearing people.
Deaf History Month concludes on April 15th. On April 15, 1817 the first school for the deaf, the American School for the Deaf, was opened in Hartford, CT. The American School for the Deaf is still open today.
These were two pivotal events in the history of deafness in the United States. Before the American School for the Deaf was opened, deaf children were either educated at home or not at all. Now they had a place to go for education. Since that time many schools for the deaf opened across the United States. Before 1988, only people who could hear were named president of Gallaudet. Deaf students and employees of the University deemed this unfair and began a weeklong protest that led to the naming of the first deaf president at Gallaudet. The students felt it was unfair for a hearing person to be making decisions about the education of deaf people. They felt that deaf people should be making the decisions that affect deaf people.
Over the years, there have been many people who have had a major impact on deaf people in the United States. One of those people was Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet. He has been called the Father of Deaf Education. Thomas H. Gallaudet was born in 1787. In 1814 he met his neighbor girl, Alice Cogswell. Alice was deaf. Thomas took an interest in the little girl and began to work with her and teach her. Alice’s father persuaded Gallaudet to travel to Europe and learn about teaching deaf children. Gallaudet first went to England but none of the deaf school there were willing to share their teaching methods with him. He then traveled to Paris where he visited the Paris School for the Deaf. Here he learned about using sign language to teach deaf children. He also met a teacher named Laurent LeClerc. He convinced LeClerc to return the United States with him. On April 15, 1817 Gallaudet and LeClerc opened the first school for the deaf, the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, CT. This was the first school for the deaf in the United States. One of the first students to attend was Alice Cogswell. Over the years since it opened, the American School of the Deaf has educated thousands of deaf students.
This just one of many events and one of many people that Deaf people in the United States will remember and celebrate in the upcoming month.

National Peace Corps Week

43 years ago, President Kennedy stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and said, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” A month and a half later, on March 1, President Kennedy signed the bill establishing the Peace Corps. Since that day, 170,000 Americans have heeded President Kennedy’s call and have worked in 137 different countries. Today, more than 7,500 volunteers live and work in more than 70 nations around the globe. Peace Corps volunteers work in such diverse fields as education, health, HIV/AIDS education and awareness, information technology, business development, the environment, and agriculture.
President John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps to promote world peace and friendship. Three simple goals comprise the Peace Corps mission:
1. Helping the people of interested countries meet their need for trained men and women.
2. Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served.
3. Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of all Americans.
From March 1 through March 7, 2004, thousands of former Peace Corps volunteers, representing more than 100 countries of service, will share their overseas experience in communities around the United States. Through these presentations during Peace Corps week, former volunteers help raise awareness of the Peace Corps. These volunteers also highlight the opportunity to serve as a volunteer and the many benefits of Peace Corps service.
During Peace Corps week, if you know a Peace Corps volunteer, thank him or her for going overseas and representing the very best the United States has to offer. Peace Corps volunteers are on the frontlines for promoting peace. These are selfless and determined people who are trying to make a difference in the lives of others. They live in far away lands and village with exotic names. They live in places with out basic services like running water and electricity. They live in places where children go hungry; where children do not go to school; where disease and malnutrition are facts of life. They work in schools without textbooks and in clinics without medicines.
These volunteers are promoting a side of the United States rarely seen or heard about in foreign countries. Most of what host country nationals know about the United States comes from Hollywood movies or from news stories. These volunteers are working to promote the United States as good and peaceful, not the materialistic society it has been portrayed as in the movies. They are working to promote the image of the United States as peaceful, not the go it alone cowboy, the United States has been portrayed as in the foreign press.
Our servicemen and women are heroes for going to far off places to defend our freedoms. Peace Corps volunteers are heroes for going to far off places and promoting peace and friendship. We should remember and thank all our heroes for their sacrifices to freedom and peace.
If you have the opportunity to speak with a volunteer, take advantage of it. They all have interesting stories to tell. They all have had the adventure of a lifetime.
For more information about Peace Corps, visit the Peace Corps website at www.peacecorps.gov.

The Department of Homeland Insecurity

Once again the Department of Homeland Security has shown how inept it is at grasping what they perceive as the problem of immigration. In a real twisted sense of doing something that might appear that they are doing something, a techo- autocrat has latched onto a report written by the Justice Department that says 85% of immigrants who are to appear in court of immigration preceedings don't show up for their court date. The techocrat says that this 85% are skipping out so they don't get deported. The technocrat fails to mention that the report says 85% don't show either because of INS bungling and mismanagement or because the immigrannt skips out. The report says their is no way to tell what percent actually skips out. Anyway the technocrat has decided that immigrants that are waiting to appear in court should wear electronic monitors on their ankles. Now you would thinkl that those who have to wear the devices are hardened criminals or terrorists, but no, these are people who are not at risk to flee or who are a threat to National Security. They are people like the man from Minneapolis who is the assitant manager at a restuarant and has been for 5 years. He owns a house. He is person who is trying to live the American Dream but the dunces at Homeland Insecurity think he is a threat so needs to be treated like a criminal. Another example, a woman from Liberia. She witnessed her whole family being killed in Liberia and came the US to escape. She has to wear a device because she has been deemed a flight risk. Where is going to go? Back to Liberia? How about the immigrant woman who fled from her abusive American husband. She has to wear a device. I guess Homeland Insecurity thought she should have stayed with her abusive husband. Homeland Security is a clueless organization. They have no idea who the real threats are.

Ward Churchill

I was listening to NPR this morning. The story was about Ward Churchill and freesom of expression on college campuses. Ward Churchill said some pretty offensive things to and about a lot of people. He postulated that the 9/11 hijackers were soldiers fighting to protect innocent men, women, and child throughout the world from the United States. He also postulated that the WTC was a legitimate military target because the CIA had an office there and that the Wall Street companies there were complicit in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. He goes on to say that 9/11 is retribution for the heavy handed way the US has acted over the 2 centuries since its inception. He lists several examples of how US policy in Vietnam, Korea, Japan, the Phillipines, wars against the Native Americans, and on killed hundreds of thousands on innocents. He wrote that it is US arrogance around the world that ultimately led the hijackers to do what they did. He said the hijackers did what they did to wake Americans up to the arrogance of the government. He goes on to list further offenses perpetrated by the FBI and the CIA. He calls George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Madeline Albright, among others, war criminals. It turns into a pretty long winded rant against almost everyone and everything in the US. I don't necessarily agree with what he says but he does make some points. The US is arrogant in its dealings with other countries. The US tells other countries to support us in the war on terrorism. If you are not with us, then you support terrorism. How arrogant is that? US policy in the Middle East has been to support corrupt governments, so that the flow of oil in unabated. The US gives lip service to democracy but doesn't support real change in Saudia Arabia or Egypt. Is it any wonder that citizens in these countries don't trust the US? The US has, for generations, used the resources of other countries to its advantage but has not in any constructive way given back to those countries. The citizens of the Middle East and the world are fed up with the arrogance of the US. The US has become a pariah state. Why? Because the US feels it can do whatever it wants, take whatever resources it wants, and tell the rest of the world what it expects them to do. Well, the rest of the world is telling the US a great, big, fat, emphatic "No." A small group of men just did it in a very spectacular way.

North Korea

Let me see if I have this right.. Iraq, which didn't have nuclear weapons, didn't have biological weapons, didn't have chemical weapons, was invaded by the US because Iraq wouldn't meet its international obligations to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea has admitted to having nukes, refuses to meet an international obligations as laid out by the UN, but is in no danger of being invaded by the US.

Could it be that the US actaully knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction so thought it would be a cake walk? (Why else would Don Rumsfeld not plan for post-invasion, if Iraq wasn't going to be a cake walk?) What an easy way to secure vast oil fields and natural gas reserves, and get new military bases in the Middle East, than to invade a relatively defenseless country. Does North Korea have oil and gas reserves? No. So why invade? The US can use all the diplomatic means necessary to solve the problem. Apparently all the diplomatic means were successful in Iraq but someone forgot to tell George Bush.