Sex, god, nukes and babies

As a self identified progressive and spiritual person I find myself constantly perplexed by the contradictions I see in the Christian neoconservative movement.  I understand that because our views are different I will never fully understand their position on any issue but what has really gotten to me this week is the disconnect between their righteous indignation of sex and their tolerance of the current administration’s nuclear policy.

Let’s look at the argument for abstinence.  They say there is no such thing as safe sex but they have no trouble proclaiming the safety of new nuclear weapons.  Sex is never safe because condoms are only 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of HIV.  RRW is safe despite the 100% likelihood that testing these nuclear weapons will put more cancer causing uranium into our water shed system depleting our earth and spreading disease. 

What’s the likelihood these weapons will have to be tested?  I say the chances are as good as they are that at least 10 teenagers will engage in sex before they graduate high school; in other words, very high changes indeed.  New nuclear weapons will inevitably have to be tested because otherwise those who plan using them will have no idea how they work.  If neoconservatives believe the risk of sex with condoms is so great, how can they not see the risk in new nuclear weapons?

Of course, we know that the abstinence only program is not about disease it’s about god’s will.  God, apparently, does not think people should engage in sex unless it’s for procreation, the creation of life.  They believe the lives of people are the most important thing to protect.  They, neoconservatives, go so far as to say that a fetus is a life and must be protected by law.  This fetus, which must be protected at all cost, is most at risk from nuclear fallout and uranium seeping into the water system.  Look no further than birth defect rates in Ukraine for evidence.  Infant mortality, debilitating birth defects, and increased infertility have left this country with a declining population after the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl.  Even with all the horrible things nuclear material does to babies in the womb, I never saw Jerri Fallwell at an anti-nukes rally.

Only talking about sex and babies is really missing the main point.  Nuclear weapons, whether new or old, are designed to kill people; people who, according to the faithful, were put here by a god that loves them.  Neoconservatives seem to believe that god has favorites:  fetuses, Americans, and Christians.  They will tout the importance of saving lives from abortion and then proclaim we should use our nuclear weapons to kill the brown people for having nuclear weapons (which they are not sure they have).  

Do you see the disconnect here, or am I crazy?  I work with all sorts of religious types whom I respect for their beliefs, even if I don’t hold them myself.  My mother, the priest, believes that god put us on this earth to be in community with one another and in doing so we are in community with god.  All religious fundamentalists seem to believe the opposite – their sole purpose is to break up communities by drawing arbitrary lines to suit their taste.  Life is sacred – as long as it’s a life we agree with.  God created the earth – but, it is not our responsibility to be stewards of that earth.  Science goes against gods will – unless that science enables us to kill people who do not believe the same things as us.  It’s infuriating and I challenge any fundamentalist out there to hit me back with some of your hate speech – tell me why you think war is so good and nuclear weapons are so necessary.  Then tell me why god supports you.  I’d love to demonstrate your ignorance live and in blog.

The Shift - a trailer that gave me chills

Misleading the American Public on Nukes

Earlier on this blog I commented on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s attack on Sen. Barrak Obama and his stance on nuclear weapons. Frankly, I believe (like many of you) that neither candidate has fully accepted a progressive platform. What strikes me though is the inconsistency with which they (all politicians) conduct their campaigns.

A recent article by the Boston Globe elaborates on Clinton’s stance on nuclear weapons – just a year ago she said nukes were ‘off the table’ for dealing with Iran. Not only are these candidates inconsistent but their constant threats of military action on states like Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan only reinforce the Bush administration’s assessment that they are part of a falsely constructed ‘axis of evil’. I am almost hesitant to criticize the top Democratic candidates because I would rather be condemning candidates like Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Brownback whose platforms are so far from my ideals. But, if I cannot look to either party to find my values I must keep pressure on those candidates who most closely reflect them.

Related to this is a recent paper published in the Atlantic Monthly. The paper presented a cogent argument that China was a more significant threat to the U.S. than any Arab nation. That if we were to use nuclear weapons, unlike most politicians would like you to believe, they would be used on China. This was not a political paper – it was written by a professor and a former DOD official. It lays out the tactical plan, the devastation, and the potential fallout (political and securities focused fallout) of a nuclear strike. As an activist, for me, the underling issue is clear. Nothing good can come from any nuclear attack from the U.S. or any other state in this world. It only brings destruction.

Senator Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican, and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agrees. He has been a vocal advocate for the collection and destruction of fissile materials throughout his terms in office; passing the Nunn-Lugar bill to focus this work in the Former Soviet Union. He recently wrote a commentary on the success of this program. We can achieve nuclear abolition if we continue to understand and communicate the devastating implications of nuclear war.

Do you agree? Is there ever a reason to use nuclear weapons? Vote in Parade Magazine’s poll on this subject, here.

Presidential Canidates Callus on Nuclear Question

Barack Obama’s statement, last Thursday, that he would not use nuclear weapons “in any circumstance” to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan and drew criticism from chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and accolades from anti-nuclear activists.
It appears Sen. Obama is the only leading Presidential candidate who is willing to consider the multifaceted implications of a foreign policy where ‘all options’ are on the table.

During the Cold War the U.S. public was intimately aware of the threat nuclear war posed to the country and the world. While the bombs have become more powerful the country has become more complacent about our leaders threatening their use. It is a shame that in all the rhetoric condemning or applauding Obama’s statement no one has questioned the destructive position of Clinton and the other candidates.

Nuclear weapons are never an acceptable form of force, but especially in this circumstance would be devastating to our world and to our national security – moreover, they would be ineffectual in their purpose.

Nuclear weapons cannot weed terrorists out of the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nuclear weapons are designed to decimate a region or country – they have no purpose but to kill civilians for years after the initial explosion with cancer and birth defects. By definition, their use is in itself is a terrorist act because they so specifically target civilians. Our threats of a ‘nuclear option’ only further inflame a difficult diplomatic situation in the Middle East and radicalize new terrorist recruits.

Those candidates who would not take the nuclear option off the table are callus and arrogant – preferring to placate to the minority of the country who support the Bush administration than to stand up for a new direction in U.S. foreign policy. They are
naïve for believing the nuclear option should ever be on the table.

Looking for something to do this weekend?

Couple of things:

The anniversaries of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are August 6th and 9th respectively. I suggest if you cannot find an event in your area you take a moment this weekend to think of the destruction Bush could cause if he tries to start a nuclear war with Iran.

Also, here’s a peacefully minded movie (for those without AC in their homes). I’m always down for the free AC at the theater.

The film NO END IN SIGHT: The American Occupation of Iraq - The Inside Story from the Ultimate Insiders only opened here and in DC (E Street Cinema, 555 11th Street NW,.entrance on E Street between 10th and 11th Street. (202) 452-767, showings at 2:20 5:05 7:30 10:00) this weekend. This Friday it opens in five theatres in LA. The next week (8./10) it goes to one theatre each in SF, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, Philly, Seattle, and Dallas. Then Michigan and, Missouri, and Houston; Boston; Indianapolis, Austin, Santa Fe; Denver and Hartford; Colorado and CT, and so forth, through October. My hunch is the best thing we can do now is trek into the city to see it, so it has a big opening here in NYC. If it does well, we might be able to get it more local theaters.

I just watched the riveting trailer at the film web site, which has a ton of other great features including live clips, reviews, synopsis, etc. http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/

This film won the Special Jury Prize for Documentary at Sundance this year, its a Silvedocs selection, and the reviews are astoundingly good. The list of high-ranking people interviewed in this film is incredible:

The Nuclear Question…there should be no question.

The recent tragedy in Japan, where an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.6 injured 47 people and killed 9, sparks another debate about the use of nuclear materials in our world. In the earthquake two nuclear energy plants, owned and operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), were near the epicenter and were damaged during the event. The following are excerpts from a Guardian Article describing the damage to these 2 facilities: 50 cases of malfunctioning and trouble have been found since the quake Monday.

In 5 reactors major exhaust pipes were knocked out of place and TEPCO was investigating whether they had leaked radioactive materials.

100 drums containing low-level nuclear waste feel at the plant. Some were found with their lids wide open.

Small amounts of radioactive materials, cobalt-60 and chromium-51, have been emitted into the atmosphere from an exhaust stack.

A small fire caused a leak of water containing radioactive material.

While TEPCO insists that no significant damage was done to the environment and they claim there are no health concerns as yet. Japanese Prime Minister took a less flippant view of the outcome saying, “They raised the alert too later. I have sent them stern instructions that such alerts must be raised seriously and swiftly. Those involved should repent for their actions.”

The effects of leaked nuclear materials are clear from the incidences at 3-mile Island and Chernobyl. The environmental and human causalities are devastating. In Ukraine birth defects and cancer are common even 21 years later.

Despite this, and the obviously catastrophic implications of a nuclear bomb, there are still people who refuse to support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is beyond time for the U.S. to take a leadership role in nuclear abolition.

The future of our world is dependant on our outrage. Each time these poisons enter our water and air systems we jeopardize the health and safety of the next generation. We must remind our leaders that there is never a nuclear option.

Taking Action for Peace: 50 years in the making

Below is our press release about the recently released book on Peace Action. We love to hear about your take on the peace movement over the past 50 years. Tell us how you have been active and how you would like Peace Action to continue for the next 50 years.

AMERICA’S LARGEST PEACE NETWORK PUBLISHES ANTHOLOGY

(Silver Spring, MD) Peace Action: Past, Present, and Future is a collection of lively essays written by prominent leaders and supporters of Peace Action and its two important predecessors—the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign.

Editors Glen H. Stassen and Lawrence S. Witter survey a half-century of the work in the peace movement by three of the largest and most influential peace organizations in American history. With a foreword by Representative Barbara Lee, this book provides a unique resource for understanding popular protest against nuclear weapons and war in the modern era. It also illuminates the local, national, and international role of Peace Action today.

Peace Action: Past Present and Future is published by Paradigm Publishers, and will be retailing for $16.95 through the publisher and Peace Action.

Glen Harold Stassen, Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary, in addition to Peace Action: Past Present, and Future has edited Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War, and authored Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Peace and Justice, Living the Sermon on the Mount, and Kingdom Ethics. He is a long respected activist and scholar and is a board member of Peace Action.

Lawrence S. Wittner, Professor of History at the State University of New York at Albany, is the author of Rebels Against War: The American Peace Movement, 1933-1983, Cold War America: From Hiroshima to Watergate, The Struggle Against the Bomb (an award-winning trilogy), and of numerous other books and articles. He is a prominent historian who serves on the national board of Peace Action.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee was elected to represent California’s ninth Congressional District in 1998. She is the Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, First Vice-Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and a Senior Democratic Whip.

This book is dedicated to the late William Sloane Coffin, Jr. and produced in conjunction with Peace Action’s 50th anniversary celebrations. Contributing authors: Sandy Gottlieb, Monica Green, Marcus Raskin, Andrea Ayvazian, Cora Weiss, Jim Wallis, David Cortright, Jon Rainwater and Kevin Martin, Peace Action Executive Director.

Peace Action, with over 100,000 members and nearly 100 chapters in 34 states, works to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, promote government spending priorities that support human needs.

One Step Forward and Two Steps Back: The U.S. Nuclear Policy

By: Barbra J. Bearden

We’ve had some great news in the past few months regarding non-proliferation and disarmament. Experts and activists agree that an amazing resurgence of the anti-nuclear movement, one not seen since the late days of the Cold War, is in part responsible for checking the Bush administration’s efforts to reinvigorate U.S. nuclear capabilities. This mobilization began with the fight against the ‘bunker buster” and “mini nukes.” Now, we are winning the fight against “reliable replacement warheads” (RRW) and the poorly conceived “complex 2030.” The House zeroed out funding for these White House initiatives and, hopefully, the Senate will follow.

At Peace Action, we are proud to be a part of this movement – prouder still that our efforts to mobilize citizens against nuclear weapons may become an archaic part of our mission. I received a story from the Associated Press trumpeting the success of the negotiations, lead by the U.S., with North Korea to shut down the county’s nuclear reactor. “Clearly, we’ve made a turn over the weekend…We’re away from these banking issues, back onto denuclearization issues (Associated Press).” The banking issues U.S. nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill is referring to are centered on U.S. foreign aid money promised to North Korea in exchange for disarmament back in February of this year. After an extensive debate over which state should take action first the U.S. finally agreed to free up the aid funds on the promise that North Korea would dismantle their reactor “within this year.”

Despite our government’s abhorrence of nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea we are still the most heavily armed nuclear power in the world. We are still first among nuclear proliferators – most recently assisting India in obtaining nuclear materials. Sadly, among our citizenry is a select group who believe that U.S. control of nuclear weapons is not only inevitable but necessary.

Frank Gaffney, of the Washington Times, said “once the technology to build nuclear weapons became widely available, there was no way to stuff the nuclear genie back in the bottle.” Thomas D’Agostino, deputy administrator for defense programs at the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration, said he was committed to funding RRW next year. It seems, despite the will of the people, and the commitment of our representatives, those whose careers are invested in nuclear weapons would like to stay that way. Department of Energy bureaucrats claim the bolstering of funds for nuclear armament in the U.S. and throughout the former Soviet Union is intended to thwart the “desire of al Qaeda ad other terrorist groups to gain nuclear weapons or improvised nuclear devices.”

What logic are these people following? Somehow they believe that investing new resources in nuclear sites will be more effective in preventing their ill use than eliminating them all together. I am not suggesting that expanding the Cooperative Threat Reduction program geographically is a bad idea. I simply own up to one fact – horizontal proliferation (across borders) isn’t the only kind; vertical proliferation (expanded nuclear capabilities within one country) can put the world at just as great a risk . With this in mind, our successes in North Korea are nullified by our own nuclear program.

Perhaps other countries might follow the U.S. non-proliferation model. If the U.S. can use economic exploitation to force a country like North Korea to disarm – some other country could do it to force us. A country like China, which is heavily invested in U.S. trade deficits could pull those investments and cripple the U.S. economy until we submit to disarmament of our nuclear weapons. Of course China will never do this, but, not because they are more benevolent than the U.S. in their foreign policy. They will never enact a policy to hurt trade relations with the U.S. because our love of cheap clothing and nick nacks fuels their own economy.

But it is an interesting thought. If the U.S. was not the global powerhouse it became after WWII what would our foreign policy look like? Would we still insist that some countries can and should have nuclear weaponry while others are terrorist states because they seek out a nuclear policy? Would we send our military all over the globe to unseat internationally recognized governments in the pursuit of resources or ideological interests? Or, would we fear invasion by a foreign army unhappy with our current regime? It’s just something to think about.