The weekly Wednesday Olympia FOR peace vigil went well today. I arrived shortly after 12 Noon. There were several people already lined up with signs when I got there, but thanks to FOR organizer Glen Anderson, there were still plenty of signs for me to choose from. I chose a sign that read, "War is not the answer." One of the things that I like about the peace vigil is the opportunity to put a friendly face on the peace movement. I believe that in order to be instrumental in the creation of a peaceful society, the peace movement must make itself into a desirable destination for peoples' involvement. A major part of that equation is making it so that the movement is welcoming and most importantly, fun.

As usual, I had good conversations. I talked with fellow peace activists about the lies of the Bush Administration and in specific, about Scott McClellan's new book, in which he accuses high-ranking members of the Bush Administration (including President Bush, Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, Andrew Card and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby among them) of encouraging him to pass false information to the press in regard to the Valerie Plame CIA leak case. As is usual in many of the cases involving corruption of high level government officials, this story was covered only glancingly. An in depth and hard-hitting journalistic coverage of the pattern of deception that emanates from the White House, as evinced by McClellan's account, has been negligible in the mainstream media. It would seem appropriate, that when a former Bush loyalist and senior Administration staffer comes forward with charges of corruption, that a serious and in-depth investigation would follow.

At about half-way through the hour long peace vigil, the sign-holders experienced an interesting note of criticism. A woman, possibly reacting to the content of my sign ("War is not the answer") said, "We're fighting "there" so that we don't have to fight "here."" She promptly rolled up her window and drove off, so that there was not opportunity to enter into a discussion about her statement. I would suggest to her, however, that the reason "we" are fighting "there" is because of the desire, amongst prominent decision makers, for global dominance. The war is not about protecting the USA against some supposedly incorrigible and insatiable appetite for destruction, and/or terrorism. Indeed, wars of aggression, and a foreign policy of global dominance and economic conquest, are the principle causes of anti-US sentiment and terrorism. So really, and honestly now, is global dominance in the national interest? My answer is no. Global dominance may be in the interests of certain multinational corporations (and those who profit from the activities of those corporations.) But global dominance is not in my best interest or, I argue, in the best interest of the American People or the Nation. The foreign policy of global dominance is hurting people, it is causing environmental and ecological destruction. We would benefit instead, as a nation, from a foreign policy that promotes neighborliness; cooperation; fair and equitable competition; nonviolence; and a vision for sustainability and respect for future generations.