Liberty Bell

New Year’s Day is traditionally World Day of Peace. The pope makes a message, and anyone behind them in time zones can get the message quite a bit before it’s actually the New Year. Well, they’re meant to. I’m not sure if I’ll make it– my computer’s been acting up – but if this post makes it out on New Year’s Eve, I made it.

So while I am waiting for the internet connection to start working again, I’ve decided to go through my regrets/high points of 2005, and maybe include a few resolutions.

Right now my regrets can’t get past the internet connection…
And when I’m regretting something it’s hard to think of happy things.

Maybe I should wait for a new connection…

Okay, seriously, I regret getting mad at soccer. No details available. And I regret getting my finger hurt, ‘cause I had to go to the doctor.

Internet’s still not working…

High points… hmm… one would probably be the vacation our family was able to take during the summer. It is very rare for the whole family to make it on the vacation. So that was cool. And we went to Glacier National Park in Montana, so there were lots of outdoor things today – not many museums!

That reminds me, I’m probably going to be tortured by going to the Washington State History Museum today. I love Washington, and I really like history, but I don’t like museums! There are too many people, I get headaches, the people I’m with go too fast or too slow… humph.

That’s not a very good high point.

Another high point of the year would be getting a grand piano. It’s a Bechstein, 5’7’’, from 1928 but plays beautifully.

That’s enough high points.

I’ve never been very good about New Year resolutions. I actually tried keeping mine two years ago – didn’t work! Still, I might as well make some.

Practice the piano more. (hehe, nice and vague… )

Keep my room clean

Save a bit of money each month

There ya go! I probably will kinda keep each one. They’re purposefully vague, so I won’t have too much trouble.

Peace? (part 1) covered the basic structure of Roosevelt’s plans for world peace. Now I am hoping to spend some time on what people today think about Roosevelt’s ideas. There are several groups that agree with him, and are trying to apply his ideas to life in the 21st century. One of these groups is International Relations Center. (IRC)

I was reading one of their articles earlier this week: “Remembering FDR and the Four Freedoms” by Tom Barry. It listed four principals I thought worth showing you since they were related to Peace? (part 1).

1. To become a good neighbor one must stop being a bad neighbor.

2. Foreign policy must not be tied to elite ideological, military, or economic interests, but rooted in broadly defined U.S. interests.

3. We need to reassert what FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt successfully popularized, namely the notion of interdependence, which the Secretary General also mentions.

4. Power comes from prestige and respected leadership, not bullying.

The first point is a very general but true statement. If you want to be a good neighbor, you have to stop being a bad neighbor. They can’t exist together. The problem is, the paper does not tell you what being a good neighbor is (specifically), and more importantly, does not tell you what a bad neighbor is. But I will agree with this very general point - it would be illogical to disagree.

The second point is not very easy to understand. It states, “Foreign policy must not be tied to elite ideological, military, or economic interests, but rooted in broadly defined U.S. interests.” “Broadly defined U.S. interests.” And what does that mean? Even if you broadly defined those interests it would still give your readers a better idea of what you’re talking about. Sorry, buddy, I’m not telepathic. And why must foreign policy not be tied to elite ideological, military, or economic interests? Those interests have formed good relationships. And you are the International Relations Center.

The third point tells you that we need to reassert what FDR and Eleanor successfully popularized. Thankfully, he does go on to mention an example: interdependence. Interdependence is defined as: “a reciprocal relation between interdependent entities (objects or individuals or groups). Reciprocal, in turn, means: “concerning each of two or more persons or things; especially given or done in return; “reciprocal aid”; “reciprocal trade”; “mutual respect”; “reciprocal privileges at other clubs.” So what he’s saying is that we need to encourage more relationships that benefit each of the groups in those relationships. I agree with that. Unity occurs when both parties help the other. Unity is the easiest way to create a force. And a force makes it a lot easier to persuade even more people.

I’m not sure what to make of point four. It simply states, “Power comes from prestige and respected leadership, not bullying.” First, it would be best to define “power.” Power could simply be the ability to control others. But it can also be defined as the ability or capacity to perform or act effectively. In the first case, I would say bullying is more effective. Maybe despicable and disgraceful, but effective. For the second definition, the respected have a greater chance of fulfilling the position. Yet, how to you think all those people held in prestige and respect got to their positions? Some made it fair and square, but others made their way up the tower by bullying.

I was disappointed by the article. It seemed totally relevant to what I had been researching/writing about. But it was full of vague terms, and half-completed thoughts. Understandable - not very convincing. Maybe the author had explained all the terms, and finished his thoughts in some other article. Or he could just have expected us to understand what “broadly defined U.S. interests” would be. If you understand, please fill me in, since I seem to be missing the point.

Since I have spent the whole post analyzing one paper, here is the link:
Remembering FDR and the Four Freedoms

Any comments related to this post, or on the article, would be appreciated. I realize this post is a little rough. I apologize.

There is another poll listed in links, called View on War. Since I am planning to spend some time looking at World Peace and different sides on war, especially the war on Iraq, I decided to make a poll on the subject. There is a message section connected with it, if you would like to write your opinions over there. I will be checking both for comments.

Admin

On December 28, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated, “The definite policy of the United States from now on is one opposed to armed intervention.”

Now, with the war in Iraq going on, and as more and more people question President Bush’s plan, I believe it is worth going back to look at Roosevelt’s comments on World Peace.

Roosevelt believed that peace could be reach by an agreement between all the different countries. He realized that about 90% of people were content with what they had, and, that if those 90% persuaded the other 10%, “practical peace, permanent peace, real peace throughout the world” could be reached.

He proposed some guidelines to reach this peace: (summarized)

1. An agreement between all the nations to eliminate every weapon of offense in its possession and create no additional weapons of offense.

2. A declaration that no nation will permit any of its armed forces to cross its own borders into the territory of another nation.

Roosevelt did realize that unless all the nations agreed, the plan would fail. So he decided the plan would not go into affect unless “every nation, without exception, entered into the agreement by solemn obligation.”

This policy became known as the “Good Neighbor Policy.”

The Good Neighbor Policy has suffered throughout the years. It is easy to see that World Peace has not been achieved since Roosevelt’s time. From the time Roosevelt made his speech in December 1933, America has participated in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, as well as using military force to settle other issues. Now questions about the Good Neighbor Policy and World Peace have arisen again due to the way President Bush is dealing with Iraq. We begin to wonder if World Peace is a practical idea in the world we live in. Yet we also doubt the effectiveness the direct approach President Bush is taking in this issue. As I mentioned earlier, I believe it is worthwhile to look back at what Roosevelt was suggesting.

The first guideline that Roosevelt mentioned regarding the Good Neighbor Policy was the aspect of weapons. An agreement between all the nations to eliminate every weapon of offense in its possession and create no additional weapons of offense. I would question as to the practicality of that idea. If all nations agreed with this, peace could be kept until someone broke the agreement. Then the other nations would all be in danger. Not good.

The second guideline was that no nation would allow any of their armed forces across their own border.

Okay, you’ve knocked out thousands of jobs. Have fun.

Seriously, if the armed forces aren’t allowed to leave the country, the only reason to have any is to protect the border(s) of your country. Which only leaves the Coast Guard. (in America) Good-bye Army. Good-bye Navy, Air Force, Marines… Nice having you. Wish you good luck finding work.

Also, there are other reasons other than war for armed forces to cross borders. Yes, if the world was perfectly at peace, there would be no need of them. No need of police, judges, lawyers, (hmm… wouldn’t be bad) prison guards or prisons either. It makes a nice dream world, but wake-up buddies – this ain’t no dream! This is LIFE. AND NOT THE GAME. Now that we’ve cleared that up…

Roosevelt was practical, and he knew that unless all nations agreed to perfectly follow those two points, the idea wouldn’t work. He also realized nations striving for peace could still be drawn into war:

“We are not isolationists, except so far as we seek to isolate ourselves completely from war. Yet we must remember that so long as war exists on earth there will be some danger that even the nation which most ardently desires peace may be drawn into war.”

I agree with that. Cool.

That basically summarizes Roosevelt’s ideas for World Peace.

Monday marked the one-year anniversary of the deadly tsunami that brought destruction and death to many in South East Asia. On December 26th, 2004, an earthquake beneath the Indian Ocean spread giant waves over surrounding coastlines and islands. The damage was horrific. Over 200, 000 people died, and millions of people were left homeless.

People compared the damage to that caused by an atomic bomb:
“Everything was flattened. It was like a nuclear bomb had hit the place. I’ve seen bodies before but nothing like this. We lost count. The destruction was of biblical proportions.”—British tourist Al Howard who miraculously survived on Indonesia’s most northwestern island of Pulau Weh.

Please remember these people throught the coming year. Pray - if you believe in prayer. If not, you can still encourage the survivors through money, food, clothing…

Merry Christmas Everyone! I hope you enjoy the day.

Now I’m off to eat more cookies… (jk, but this is a day I want to enjoy with my family.)

I’m going to be really busy Saturday and Sunday, so none is going to fill in. Hopefully, I’ll be able to continue Monday, but things won’t get back to normal until January. Thanks.

Admin

If you look at the actual origin of Christmas, the holiday resulted from pagan events. The Ancient Romans honored the gods Saturn and Mithras, as the gods of light and the harvest. In mid December they had celebrations exalting them. It was the time when Mithras was praised for giving the people much to eat, and Saturn for returning the sun to them. People decorated their homes with greenery, prepared special food, sang, and gave gifts.

Still, I wish you a Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays, and hope this debate will not take the peace and joy away from your celebrations.

The Administrator and I have decided to split the duties for updating and publishing the Liberty Bell. Admin will be doing the updates, on posts and website design. She will also take care of all the things Liberty Bell is really about. I will be taking care of publicity, small, humorous, posts and polls. We feel it will be a fare split.

None