Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Whether it's Food or Peace, the Future is Determined by Our Participation
First of all, thanks to those who attended and supported the screening of Deborah Koons Garcia's film The Future of Food that we showed last month. We received good feedback for doing it, but many were disturbed by the information. For example, we're moving on a path that doesn't allow us to know what we are putting into our bodies. Which means we are also taking away our doctor's ability to be aware of what we are ingesting that might be causing us health problems. With no long-term testing being done on the effects of ingesting genetically modified organisms (GMOs), many of us are legitimately wondering why not.
While some at the screening felt it might be too late to change things, past successes show consumer action works. People refused to buy the tomatoes implanted with a fish gene, for instance. It was taken off the market.
Remember too the FDA proposed a definition for organic food that allowed the organic label to include food grown in sludge and irradiated foods. The FDA received the highest volume of letters they ever had on any issue. They listened and changed their definition to conform to consumer demands.
The good news is that with enough awareness about the issues people—consumers—make a difference. And when it comes to our health, and who determines what goes into our body, people get riled up enough to take action. They participate. They get involved. They channel their upset in constructive ways and have been successful.
The bottom line is that we still have a consumer-driven economy and our everyday buying decisions are our vote. Our economy is a functioning participatory democracy.
As much as we seem to be along for the ride at times when it comes to world affairs, we can still make buying choices that make a difference.
This month we have focused on those who are making a difference in the world. Their focus is on creating peace in the world by creating a culture of peace and bringing light to programs that work in resolving conflict. I won't spend time introducing those on the cover. They have all appeared there before and should be well known to Light Connection readers.
What they are doing, really, is creating an alternate reality for people to participate in. The Future of Food offered alternatives for people to buy in ways that shift the paradigm from a top down, “here's what they allow us to eat” approach, to a “it's our choice” perspective. Even Bush I refused to eat his broccoli.
Our cover people are also offering ways to create peace, one day, one person, one group at a time. Whether we're talking food or peace, the change is happening at the so-called bottom and moving toward the seemingly immovable top. It's the us part of U.S.
Each of these people has their own work. Each supports the legislation Rep. Dennis Kucinich will soon reintroduce to establish a U.S. Department of Peace (DoP) as a cabinet level department. Groups working toward this include the Peace Alliance and Americans for a Department of Peace (AFDOP).
Some view this a symbolic step, but it's much more. It will bring a new focus to proven, effective programs and give them the funds necessary to be more successful and expand.
The proposed DoP budget would be 2% of the Dept. of Defense budget or about $8-10 billion. Personally I don't like that. If the DoP is successful at reducing violence the need for a large Defense Budget could be reduced. Shouldn't the DoP get a percentage of the savings instead of less money? Reward success.
I was thinking how this is more than symbolic while listening to the news the other day. It went something like this: In action in Iraq today 45 civilians were killed, 7 terrorists and one American soldier.
Many people think that means one good guy to seven bad guys and 45 unfortunate bystanders. We won the day!?
Because the Iraqis and US forces are united against the terrorists, why don't we say that we lost 46 people and they lost seven? That might sound like we're losing—and we just don't do that.
There's another perspective though, that I think a DoP would bring. I don't think it would describe the “losses” either of the above ways. Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that 58 people were killed? We're interconnected. We lost 58 human beings because we couldn't think of a better way.
It's sad because there are other ways that move us in the direction of a more lasting peace. Just as there are food choices, there are existing programs that resolve conflict that we would choose. They are working now and could be expanded. We must know that military solutions are temporary fixes.
We could be providing tools for peace and they are available to each of us now.
War is obviously the most dramatic level to which a DoP can be directed. People are beaten and abused every day, however, by those who are the “closest” to them. A DoP would bring a new focus on applying solutions that create peace everyday. Being human and having upsets is part of our nature—but there are also skills we can learn to help us peacefully coexist and resolve our conflicts.
First comes awareness that there are other ways. Read about the Department of Peace in this issue and learn more. Effective alternatives are not being supported, or left to the individual peacemakers that we feature this month. Creating a culture of peace will take all of us—from the bottom up, participating—to turn the world sustainably up.
Have a great month,
Steve Hays
BACK TO TOPHOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
