Stu News and Photos

Here's the Wikipedia entry for Peace Activist Tom Fox

Here's a Huffington Post blog entry by , where he crafts a beautiful elegy (in prose) for Tom Fox.

It was after reading RJ Eskow's piece that I began thinking deeper about Peace in the world, and my part in it. What am I doing, right now, to promote Peace in the world?

One thought I had was to consider changing my stance from passive Peace advocate to Standing Peace Activist. I don't like to be aggressive, and I realize that aggressive is the opposite of passive, but the dictionary makes it clear that aggressive involves hostile activity. However, when I think of passive, I think of sitting. And the opposite of sitting is standing, and I like that concept a lot. Standing up for what I believe in is an important concept for me. In fact, anyone who stands up for their beliefs, no matter what the beliefs are, will earn my respect.

Taking the concept of standing up a little further, sometimes you have to stand in the middle of an argument to keep The Peace. My kids even understand that if they are fighting, I may need to place myself between them to keep The Peace. I'm not suggesting baring teeth, or clenching fists. I'm suggesting that inserting your body between two people who are engaged in physical violence is a place to start. That's what Tom Fox did (as have many, many others). I realize, through Tom's beatific example, that it is dangerous. But on the other hand, is my life more important than anyone else's? Is it more important than a hundred million lives that might be spared if enough people stand in the way right now?

Allow me to be clear: I appreciate that there are evil men in the world, attempting to get what they want at the cost of innocent, good people. I understand that there are instances where the only way to stop evil is to use a weapon. I also understand, and appreciate, that there are many women and men who have served and are serving their respective leaders by picking up a weapon and staffing a post. But can't we all agree that there is no more evidence of a need for troops to be in Iraq? Isn't it clear to the least intelligent among us that if we went home today, very little would be different than if we went home five years from now?

Thank you for your considering my feelings.