apocalypse indeed

[Sharon Sullivan <herbals@moscow.com>]

I heard the news today that 130 of the192 countries
making up the United Nations have requested an open meeting with the UN
security council.  The U.S. war is opposed by France and Russia,
among the rest.  

The impact of Congress' decision will be felt for a long time, as it has
established a precedent for any future President to hearken back
to.  As the Taft-Hartley Act serves Mr. Bush today to squelch the
dock workers in the interest of the economy, so, too, yesterday's Joint
Resolution will serve future President's when they are tempted with power
to use force.  It makes it so easy, from now on, anytime another
nation peeves us a little, let the bombs fly!  Who needs
dialogue?  Diplomacy?  Bah.  A most inconvenient, complex,
messy task.  Coming to UNDERSTANDING each other, even in times of
difference?  

Certainly India, China, Korea, Burma etc. will be watching closely to
learn just how its done, as the U.S. defines the word
"pre-emptive".

I am dismayed that Congress could be so short-sighted and succumb to the
selfish goals of the next election.  To know that our government was
designed with at least a modicum of protection via the 535 elected
representatives for a reason.   So, back to Kings and monarchy
we go, and long live the Imperial power?

Please, dear Visionaries, whatever your beliefs, your politics, your
persuasions, you still have the right to FREE SPEECH, keep using
it.  No matter what label ia applied, not everyone fits neatly into
a box, nor chooses to limit themselves to only one way of thinking at all
times, nor is a radical leftist, beer drinker, bible thumper, tree
hugger, arms bearer, breast barer, Aryan, anarchist, arch conservative,
redneck or slut.  We need every one of us.  As long as all the
voices have an equal opportunity to be heard.  even the fragments
and run-ons    and the grammar police    (there
is always the delete key)

Words of Vietnamese Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh, words that sound at first
naive:
"No men are our enemies.  By this we do not mean that we think
no men will try to destroy us; or that we overlook that fact that men
from certain sections of the society are above all likely to try
it.  We mean, first, of course, that we are committed to try not to
destroy them; we mean furthermore that there is a working chance--if we
do refuse to threaten them with violence personally as we struggle with
them--that in certain instances at least some of them may be willing to
accommodate themselves to the pressure we put on them to change, and so
both they and we may be liberated from the state of enmity.  We mean
that we refuse to cut ourselves off from them in any ultimate human
sense--counting it as both decent and practical to do so.  The point
is not vengeance but change."

Sorry I went on too long.  My long-winded way to say I appreciate
this forum, especially in these times of darkness and
disappointment.

Sharon Sullivan