I snapped a photo of this sticker on the back of a pickup truck at a stop light. I often wonder if this sort of person realizes what this quaint little sticker really implies.

Regardless of the 26th annual United Nation’s International Peace Day, a suicide bomber detonated a truckload of explosives at the Kirkuk police academy this afternoon in Northern Iraq killing three recruits. You wonder if the bomber was pissed that the police recruits had disrespected Peace Day by not laying down their fire arms. I doubt the bomber had any such intentions, but what exactly is “peace” when police officers and military men must enforce it?

The word “peace” is so overused and abused it has become cliché. The word has lost all potency. We, the privileged of powerful nations, toss it around invoking warm tingly sensations justifying everything we do, as if we were its vanguard. The way we spout the word it seems it should be easy to accomplish if it just wasn’t for all those big bad people out in the world who screw it up, right? But what is peace? Or, at least, what meaning is really intended when we use the word?

Peace is a still pool of water. Peace is a wave at equilibrium. It is an element at rest. It is an element that has been left alone, seeing that when a stimulus is introduced unrest is created. It is therefore hypothesized that peace can also be made to exist by removing the stimuli which brings about unrest. If wind ripples the pool, remove the wind. But when the concept is abstracted to the social level, the meaning becomes difficult to ascertain.

Life itself is a rift in the peace of the universe. The human body is never literally at peace. We hunger and we thirst. We want and we need. Perhaps in death we are brought nearer peace, but our bodies do not rest in peace–they decompose. When the word peace is applied in social terms, it is obviously not to be interpreted literally. So, what is really meant?

In general, it is understood to mean social congruity, whereas social incongruity brings about conflict. But as life has proven to most of us, the desires of one person quite naturally conflict with the desires of others. And naturally, the desires of one nation will also conflict with the desires of another nation. This is inherent. How then is social congruity achieved?

There are two methods by which to attempt social congruity. The first can be achieved through social intimacy, where a tribe of humans are bound to each other emotionally because their fate is shared. This was the way of the Native Americans and primeval people. In this way natural social congruity is achieved. The second method is accomplished by means of power, where a ruling group first subverts the tribe and second imposes order upon the tribeless men. This is the method implemented by the organization we call the nation-state. This is imposed social congruity.

As Peace Day is an initiative of the United Nations, and the United Nations is an organization of nation-states, we can infer that Peace Day refers to the social congruity that is imposed and achieved through power. Despite best intentions, the U.N. is not concerning itself with peace among men. It concerns itself with peace between nations.

A nation itself, however, fails it’s purpose of social congruity outright. The people automotically react against the imposed order of a state. There is nothing that binds the people intimately to the state, therefore, the people do not serve willingly. Some people follow the imposed order only by fear of law and by the threat of law enforcement. Some people become cunning, and find ways to circumvent laws for their own benefit. Some develop a faith in the state and strive to change it though they disagree it. But in all cases the state is socially disintegrated. In all actuality, the state is just a precarious arrangement, that if not carefully put into order and maintained, tends to divide itself back into smaller intimate social units. But as long as the power’s that be exercise their power, the citizens of a state are obliged to act in accordance.

When you think about it, conflict of nations, be it a civil conflict within a nation or a conflict between borders, is likely one of the greatest causes of violence. Frankly, the world would be a lot more peaceful without them. Nonetheless, the U.N. hopes to bring peace by literally uniting nations under international law. And if you know anything about international law, you’re aware that there is really no effective way of enforcing it, unless a powerful nation decides to exercise influence and take measures to see it enforced.

While the U.N. aims at facilitating international cooperation, it still falls prey to inherent problems that arise from a world of independent nations. The U.N. only has the power that its member states grant it. It cannot demand nations to disarm their police force or military. It cannot stop a nation from exercising its power. The U.N.’s political influence is about as effective as the faint words of a mother to a schoolyard of bullies, outcasts and runts. With this dismal picture, what strategy does the U.N. have imposing world peace?

Obviously, “imposed peace” must be imposed by means of power, and if we’re talking world peace, it would have to be one world power. The U.N. itself could never serve as the hegemonic power that would be required to impose peace around the world, but it could potentially facilitate one powerful nation or a group of powerful nations into a position of hegemonic power.

Such a world order would act similar to the federal government of a nation, but it would have no other nations to war against, because it would be the only entity to influence war. It is obvious that a certain level of order may be accomplished by a world power, but do we really want this peace if it requires hegemony?

Even though the U.N. hasn’t thought this far ahead, ultimately, this is how world peace is to be won. One should be reminded, that this type of peace, just as with the nation-state, is imposed, and therefore always tends to disruption. Similar to the nation-state, this world order would have to take police action against it’s own people who break it’s laws and challenge it’s dominance. And we’re back where we started. What is peace where it must be enforced by police officers or military men?

After this analysis, it becomes difficult to use the word ‘peace’ at all to describe what is intended by Peace Day. The word becomes completely inappropriate. In essence, the “peace” which the U.N. intends to promote is the same peace that is won when a hostage submits because he has a gun held to his head. The more fitting term is “order.” Thus, Sept. 21 should be more appropriately called Order Day.

The way I see it, the concept of peace is not at all applicable to humanity. Social interaction inherently involves conflict. The characteristic that marks a good social group is the way in which these conflicts are handled. When these conflicts are handled well, I would call this social harmony, not peace. Peace is lifeless and still. Harmony is a progression of diverse and changing tones, which work themselves together in a complimentary fashion.

So then, if the question is how to accomplish social congruity, we must take a step back to the two methods by which it can be achieved. Since we have found that social congruity imposed by power is detestable, we must choose the route of social intimacy. Only in this way may social harmony be restored.

''...and damn the rest!'' as it would be logically concluded.

Today was Patriot Day. It was the seventh memorial of September 11th when thousands of Americans perished in the World Trade Center attacks. It is a day when teacher’s tell their children to where red white and blue. It is a day when the pledge of allegiance is made a specifically important part of the daily events and is, perhaps, followed by a moment of silence.

It is a day designed to unite American citizens, despite our diversity, in a blind celebration of nationalism. Together we celebrate the terrorist acts that the American government has committed with impunity. We celebrate our privilege as a powerful nation and our ability to force our will upon other sovereign nations. We celebrate our ability to force our corrupt paradigm of government upon other nations so we may have power over them. We celebrate our power to force “liberty” and “freedom” along with our valueless culture and our ailing society upon other nations. We celebrate as we dismantle vibrant and independent societies so they are open to be exploited by the global economy.

And all the while we wonder how anyone in the world could hate us. How could anyone hate us? We are the United States of America! Every other nation envies us. Every other nations just wishes to live up to our greatness!

There was a girl I once knew in high school. She was a beautiful spirit. The kind of person who would cheer you up, when you were down. Her name was Marie.

That was four years ago. Upon a visit to my old hometown, I just happened to run into her. She was working for my father as a secretary. But when I first saw her, I did not recognize her. Her smile was gone, her face had rounded out, her hair, which had once fell long and full, was tied back carelessly and she was wearing a black and unwashed over-sized t-shirt. Her spirit was all dried up.

I sat down and spoke with her briefly. “So how’ve you been?” I asked.

A note I found in the back of my high school year book.

“Oh, ya know, just working.”

“So, your with…uh… Keller, right?”

“Yea.”

“Great,” I said having nothing better to say.

“Not that great,” she blurted.

I stumble, I nod my head like an idiot. I don’t know how to respond, I want to console her, but instead I change the subject: “Well, what else have you been up to?”

“We moved out to Denver for a while, cuz Mark wanted to try college. But he hated it, so we moved back.”

I’m afraid to ask another question. I feel like this casual meeting has become an interrogation, a rude exposé. But she continues anyway without my prompt, as if to confirm her utter sorrow.

“Married. … Two kids. … yea.”

And there it was everything bared, in sincere dejection, yet without shame and without embarrassment.

God. What frustration. What sadness. What’s a man to do? I feel just as helpless as her, and I want to help, but there’s nothing I can do. God. I wish I could ride in on a white stallion, rescue her in my arms, and gallop of into the sunset to some place where people would treat her the way she deserves to be treated. But there is no such place. And alas, I’m a homosexual. And while I’d still be there for her, I cannot give her myself and I cannot give her the love she deserves.

As I ride home across the Colorado passes on two wheels, wind in my ears, my mind replays the scene. I’m angry at the world for stripping away her spirit. No, I’m not angry at the world. I’m angry at the failure of my community. High school taught us nothing of how to deal with this. I’m angry at my father for paying her something just above minimum wage to work for him. I’m angry at him for not caring about her, beyond the fact that she shows up on time. I’m angry at her husband for consuming her beauty. I’m angry at all those around her who could allow this to happen. And I’m angry at myself for being able to do nothing.

I came home and found her picture in the yearbook. There’s that genuine smile. There’s the sparkle in her eyes. There’s the lively girl I once knew. And as I flipped to the end of the book I see a note written in silver marker. It read: “You are the funniest smart kid I know. Remember life is short so smile. You are just sooo cute. -Marie.”

Addendum [October 12, 2008]:After a conversation with my dear aunt in regard to this article, I would like to make a few clarifications. Namely, that I realize there are compassionate souls like my aunt who take the initiative to help people like Marie. But I would like to stress, that there is really only so much a person can do in a working relationship. Marie’s problems extend far outside of work, yet if personal problems disrupt work, Marie risks being fired.

We tend to place the blame squarely on the individual, but no one benefits from that mind set. In all reality, anyone else in her shoes would have no more decision than she has now. Life is tough, and it’s difficult to go it alone. That is why community is important. If Marie really had a close community, Marie’s sadness would be everyone’s sadness. So naturally everyone would want to help her. But as Marie’s story proves, the crucial supportive framework know as the community is being broken down, and it is partly the professionalism and boundaries of the work environment that is causing its ruin. Now, my father is a business owner, and I’m not saying business is bad, but I’m saying that community needs to come before business.

Author’s Note: Due to the sensitive nature of this article, the actual names of the people mentioned above have been substituted with false names. I am reluctant to do this as I believe we just waste each other’s time by protecting false images of each other’s lives. But in this case, I will defer.