Book Review: Ending US Wars

Ending US Wars by Honoring Americans Who Work for Peace by Michael D. Knox (2021 PAX) 

I'm on the email list for the US Peace Memorial Foundation, and I got into an online discussion with Michael D. Knox, the organization's founder and chair, about the organization's membership, and how the recipients of the organization's US Peace Prize are selected. Each year the group's members make nominations of persons or organizations who've taken antiwar actions in the last 16 months, and who the members have direct contact with--so the awards go to people already in the members' network, essentially. 

Knox is also the author of the book Ending US Wars by Honoring Americans Who Work for Peace which was published in 2021, and has been updated online through at least 2025. At present more than 180 individuals and more than 80 organizations have been awarded the foundation's US Peace Prize, and all are listed in a "peace registry" in the book, in the print version up to 2021, and in the online version up to the present. The book's other purpose is to help raise funds to create a "peace memorial" honoring all these US Peace Prize recipients in Washington, DC. That would add one more "memorial" to a city already crowded with memorials.

According to Knox, "The US Peace Memorial Foundation is an ongoing project as we continue to celebrate antiwar models." Pages 280-281 of the book explain the foundation's purpose, "This tax-exempt 501(c)(3) Foundation established in 2005 directs a nationwide effort to honor Americans who stand for peace by publishing the US Peace Registry, awarding the annual US Peace Prize, and planning for the US Peace Memorial as a national monument in Washington, DC. These educational projects help move the United States toward a culture of peace by recognizing and honoring the thoughtful and courageous Americans and US organizations that have taken a public stand against one or more US wars or who have devoted their time, energy, and other resources to finding peaceful solutions to international conflicts. The foundation celebrates these role models to inspire other Americans to speak out against war and to work for peace." A one-time donation of $100, or several smaller donations totalling $100, gets you a founding membership and the priviledge of nominating candidates for the US Peace Prize.

During my online exchange with Knox he asked if I could publish anything about the foundation, stating, "The US Peace Memorial Foundation is now in its 21st year, and this is our 18th year of awarding the US Peace Prize. Unfortunately, mainstream America is unaware of our existence." I said I could at least blog about it, if nothing else, so I'm reviewing his book here.

If Knox and his foundation are serious about this campaign for a "peace memorial," then let us examine some other attempts to create monuments or "memorials" to peace. Already there have been several attempts across the USA, some successful, some not, but most have been gardens or parks:  

• The Peace Memorial Park in Portland, Oregon, is a giant floral peace sign dedicated to the memory of all victims of all wars. 
• Peace Garden at Fresno State University in Fresno, California, is a statue garden that honors Ghandi, MLK, Jane Addams, Nelson Mandela. Other features are added from time to time.
• The Lyndale Peace Park Garden in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the Peace Garden in Riverfront Park in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, both honor victims of the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• The Peace Plaza in Salem, Oregon is simply an abstract sculpture garden, with little to link it to peace beyond its name and the fact that it is a peaceful public space.
• Prairie Peace Park was located on Highway 80 near Lincoln, Nebraska, and opened in 1994 but closed in 2005--a measure, perhaps, of how much America values its monuments to peace.
• The Pacifist Memorial at the Peace Abbey in Sherborn, Massachussetts, contains a statue of Ghandi along with plaques and stones honoring thirty or more men--and also thirty or more women--who practiced pacifism, along with plaques and stones honoring war victims and war correspondents.  

I personally find building a "peace memorial" far less of a priority than practicing peace. You may make a memorial to victims of war, or to practioners of peace, but "peace" isn't an event to remember, the way a war is. You don't achieve peace by putting up a "memorial," you do it by changing America's miltaristic culture. 

Then there is the question of who and what any such memorial honors. Even people who spend some part of their lives working for peace are, well, only human, so any decision to honor them with any permanent memorial must be considered very seriously. The Peace Garden at Fresno removed its tribute to the late Cesar Chavez following revelations about his conduct towards certain women. The US Peace Memorial Foundation includes Tulsi Gabbard on its list of "Individuals Honored" because for a time the former congressmember did speak out for peace and against US militarism--only to turn around and become just another tool in the militaristic and authoritarian Trump administration.

To me a far more useful goal for Knox and his foundation would be a cultural institution modeled after the only major brick-and-mortar museum dedicated to peace in the United States, the International Peace Museum in Dayton, Ohio. A museum does far more than create a "memorial" to peace, or war victims, or pacifists--through ongoing educational exhibits and programs, it encourages peace.

For more information about the book and the foundation:

The updated chapter 7 that lists individuals honored by the foundation can be read at:  www.uspeacememorial.org/Individuals.pdf

The updated chapter 8 that lists organizations honored by the foundation can be read at: www.USPeaceMemorial.org/Organizations.pdf

Foundation website: www.USPeaceMemorial.org

Remember, the foundation is a 501(c)(3) public charity and its mission is to celebrate and share the work of those opposing US war and militarism. If you've got $100 to spend, you may want to join and work for peace.

Amnesty International and Leonard Peltier in "The Spirit of Crazy Horse"

While reading the book In the Spirit of Crazy Horse by Peter Mattheiesen (Penguin Books 1992) about the radical American Indian Movement of the 1970s, I was able to confirm what I already knew, that Amnesty International has been following the case of Leonard Peltier since 1976, when they sent observers to his legal proceedings. 

Despite what the people at that long-ago meeting I blogged about last April so hysterically insisted, whether or not Peltier and the rest of the American Indian Movement "advocate violence" is not relevant to why Amnesty has followed his case for fifty years and counting. It wasn't about whether he was guilty or innocent of any violent crime. It was about how he has never been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt--even the prosecution has admitted it. He was convicted on tainted evidence in a trial tainted by prosecutorial misconduct.

For reference, here's a link to my blog about that crazy Amnesty Intenational meeting where a roomful of people insisted the organization didn't "do" Peltier:   https://lynjensen.blogspot.com/2026/04/weird-guys-weird-meeting.html

Here's a key passage from Mattiessen's book:  "In a comprehensive report issued in October 1981, Amnesty International discussed at length the FBI's role . . . which revealed, "at the very least, some disrespect for the law on the part of the FBI. In Peltier the Court of Appeals held that the more prudent course might have been to allow the defense to present Myrtle Poor Bear's evidence to the jury, in Marshall [another questionable case involving Native American rights] the judge felt some "concern." Considered together, these two cases give rise to sufficient doubt about the integrity of the FBI in these matters to warrant further examination . . . Amnesty International . . . wonders what conclusion should be drawn when a federal government agency (the FBI) . . . appears willing to fabricate evidence against its "targets" and to withhold information which, according to law, should have been disclosed. It is, moreover, clear that the FBI have abused their power by producing false evidence and infiltrating the defense teams of people indicted on serious charges." Proposal for a Commission of Inquiry into the Effect of Domestic Intelligence Activities on Criminal Trials in the United States of America (Amnesty International Publications, 1981)

That 1981 book may not be the only Amnesty publication to address the Peltier case, either. I recall Jackson Browne, appearing at the 1986 Conspiracy of Hope tour, holding up an Amnesty International publication, and saying, "Leonard is in this book, when the truth comes out, Leonard will be a free man." He may have been referring to the 1981 book, or maybe to another, later book.

According to Amnesty International's own website, here is their statement regarding the news that President Biden had commuted the sentence of Peltier, dated 23 January 2025: "Amnesty previously sent observers to Leonard Peltier’s trial in 1977 and has campaigned for his release from prison for many years. Amnesty International will continue to monitor the circumstances of his confinement moving forward." 

Here is a link to more details about the commutation of Peltier's sentence, on the Amnesty site:  https://www.amnestyusa.org/campaigns/free-leonard-peltier/

Then there's the Wikipedia entry for Peltier, which, despite spending much space on persons who insist he's guilty, also acknowledges, "Human rights watchdogs, such as Amnesty International . . . campaigned for clemency for Peltier."

True, Peltier was never one of the cases officially taken up by Amnesty on behalf of a political prisoner, because their bylaws prohibit cases involving violent crime, but it's hard to believe that an entire roomful of Amnesty supporters would be so ignorant of fully understanding Amnesty's interest in Peltier's case. If I were to meet any of those people today, I'd tell them to read their own group's website. 

Book Review: "My Road Back" by Erasto R. Batongmalaque

 My Road Back by Erasto R. Batongmalaque, with Jenny L. Batongmalaque, M. D. "An Epitaph for My Father" and "The Erasto R. Batongmalaque Foundation"

When I assisted Dr. Jenny Batongmalaque with an anniversary observance of the return of Gen. MacArthur to the Philippines, I became familiar with the book My Road Back which Dr. Jenny and her family arranged to have published as an activity of the Erasto R. Batongmalaque Foundation, which Dr. Jenny and her family set up many years ago to assist Filipino World War II vets--and there are still a few around.

Her father, who spent much of his life in the Filipino military, fought in World War II, survived the Bataan Death March and subsequent imprisonment, and immigrated to the United States after he retired from his last job--supervisor with a police force in the Philippines. He wrote his memoirs in 1964. He died in 1995 in Riverside, California, and was buried at Green Hills Memorial Park at Rancho Palos Verdes, California. 

After his death, his daughter, Jenny, a doctor, published his memoirs. It's unclear whether a brief narration from his pocket-sized diary that he kept at Camp O'Donnel as a prisoner of war, dated 1942, was included in the 1964 memoirs, or was inserted by his family prior to publication. 

When Dr. Jenny arranged for the first printing of My Road Back in March 2004, she added her own epitaph for her father, and a section about the Erasto R. Batongmalaque Foundation (doing business as the Filipino Veterans Foundation). The second printing of this book, which I assisted with, contained this material along with a section about her mother, some family photos, Dr. Jenny's account of her own visit to Bataan where her father surrendered to the invading Japanese, and some news reports (including one by me). Not having seen the earlier printing of this book, I can't say whether that earlier printing contained the section on her mother, or the Bataan visit, and I know some of the reprinted news accounts were recent enough that they couldn't have been part of the 2004 printing.

I wish I'd read this book earlier, for it greatly increased my understanding of the family and the foundation that I did some work for. A first-hand account of life in the Philippines during World War II, and the period immediately before and after, is rare here in the USA, and increases our understanding of both the country and the conflict. 

Dr. Jenny apparently also wrote a book back in 1996, which I haven't had the opportunity to ask her about. It was titled, A Few Precious Days: The Plight of Filipino American Veterans of WWII. According to Amazon, it is out of print. There is a page for it on the Goodreads site, but the page is a stub that contains no additional information.

You may contact the Erasto R. Batongmalaque Foundation (their website is listed below) to obtain a copy the most recent printing of My Road Back. It's recommended for anyone who has an interest in either the Philippines or World War II. 

UPDATE:  Goodreads now has a page for The Road Back here:  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/254210377-my-road-back

Web:

Erasto R. Batongmalaque Foundation:  https://www.erbfoundation.com/

Sales of My Road Back from Erasto R. Batongmalaque Foundation:  https://www.erbfoundation.com/my-road-back

Goodreads entry for Dr. Jenny's 1996 book, although it's a stub which needs additional information:  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/126883701-a-few-precious-days?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=zmWiFTCOnC&rank=1

Weird Guys: Weird Meeting

When I started thinking about some of the weird guys I've encountered, I remembered not just one weird guy--but one who was part of a meeting of weird people--a tiny part of a large and respected international group whose mission is to seek justice. I want to tell this story to caution anyone who's participating in efforts to hold this current president's administration accountable--for anything--to avoid holding meetings that turn into the kind of chaos I encountered.

Please understand that I do not mean my story to cast any negativity on the organization I name here, its mission, its policies, or the many people who carry out its actions wisely and well. This was strictly a story of how one weird guy, and one small group of weird people, can send a meeting off the rails.

In the mid-nineties I when I was suffering through some particularly debilitating symptoms of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, just trying to find activities my health would let me pursue, that's when my U2 fandom was at its height. The Irish rock group's uplifting healing emotional terrain helped me through some of the worst spells of the illness, and some of the other issues, too, during one of the worst stages of my personal life. 

As so many are aware, U2 are longtime supporters of Amnesty International, but I'd wager I supported Amnesty International before they did. 

I obtained some information that a local Amnesty International group was meeting in a nearby community. Of course I wanted to see what I could do to support the organization. At the same time--perhaps, maybe--I'd meet some fellow U2 fans.

I cautioned myself not to get carried away at the prospect of meeting any fellow U2 fans, though. I reminded myself to keep focused on the mission of the organization--but then, even if I met no U2 fans, there'd be someone who liked music, right? (How many people don't like music?) Maybe I'd meet a Bryan Adams fan or a Joan Baez fan or somebody who was into reggae, or classical music, but there'd be something to talk about, to break the ice, right?

So I drove to the address where the meeting was supposed to be, but for once I over-estimated my travel time. Traffic was light and I found the address and a place to park easily. I still had half an hour until the meeting started. 

I considered my options. Etiquette tends to dictate not to arrive more than 15 minutes early, but I didn't have anything to do for the 20 minutes or so until "the correct time" arrived. I didn't bring along anything to read, so I couldn't read while I was waiting. I didn't know the neighborhood. I didn't know of any store, or library, or park, or anything like that, where I could kill 15 minutes or so, and if I did leave and drive around, then the convenient parking space, that I'd been so lucky to find, might not be there when I got back. I might go from being super-early to being late.

I finally decided to just go and knock on the door of the apartment where the meeting was being held. I'd apologize for being so early and offer to come back later if I was being incovenient.

The woman that came to the door had the look of a schoolteacher who's about to hit you with a ruler.

"Hi, I'm here for the meeting--" I sang out cheerfully, and before I could say another word, the woman interrupted.

"You're early and I'm eating!" she bellowed in a tone that bordered on hysteria, "You'll have to come back later!" She had the look of someone who was about to slam the door in my face.

I guess she could tell by my expression that, in that case, I wasn't coming back at all. She relented and invited me in. I sat down, apologized for being so early, tried to explain why, tried to make small talk, tried to talk about Amnesty, but I could see that she wasn't all that interested in talking to me. She was quite the gracious hostess, LOL.

Other people started to arrive. One was a strange grey-haired man who would've made great casting for that grumpy old guy who yells at kids to get off his lawn. There was a young couple who had that "grad student" look, in their sweaters and slacks and loafers. There were two or three other people, but they were extras in this drama.

I asked the young couple if they liked U2. They looked at each other like, Do we, Dear? Then the woman said, "Well, uh, we like, uh, one or two of their things." They didn't seem interested in engaging in any further conversation, about U2 or anything else, so I didn't push.

I asked the group in general what the agenda was for the evening's meeting. I got blank stares, and glances back and forth, mumblings about they didn't have any agenda, like the mere question offended them en masse. I asked if they could tell me more about the group and its activities, about paying dues and whatever, and got more blank stares, more negativity. 

So I tried to explain I'd been involved in Amnesty International since the seventies, that I'd been a dues-paying member off and on for a while, that I'd read the newsletters and written letters and sent postcards on behalf of the prisoners whose cases were being worked on, that I'd been to the concert in Los Angeles in 1986--and the general reaction I got was, we aren't about concerts. The grumpy old man was particularly hostile. In a belligerent tone, he said something about, yeah, he was there, but that's not what we do (or something like that).

So, having shared my experience with Amnesty International, and the room remaining as icy as ever, I asked the others about their Amnesty International experience. How did they choose to get involved with Amnesty International?

Choose! The room erupted, but the weird grumpy old man and the not-so-gracious hostess were the quickest to vehemently argue. They both ranted at length about how they didn't choose to get involved with Amnesty International.

The not-so-gracious hostess launched into a tale of woe about how she had to write a letter asking for the release of a man who was against women's rights. She had to do it. From the way she complained, she made it sound like someone held a gun to her head.

Then I really blew it. I mentioned Leonard Peltier.

"We don't do Leonard Peltier!" exploded the grumpy old man. He led a chorus that amounted to, "We don't advocate violence!"

I knew Amnesty International "did" Leonard Peltier, if by "did" that meant studying his case and advocating for fair and equal treatment. Peltier's case was one that Amnesty International had been involved in. I knew that. Rather than get into some pointless argument about "advocate violence," I referred to how Peltier was one of the cases discussed in Amnesty International's annual report, or book, or publication, or whatever, back in '86 or so. What book was the general response. I was talking to a roomful of people who didn't appear to know their own organization very well.

The weird grumpy old man bellowed something like, "He admits he took a shot at the guy, he just doesn't think he hit him . . .And we don't do Nelson Mandela either!"

I was struck by how the weird old man displayed something of a stereotypical "fighting Irish" spirit. I wondered if what he may have been thinking was, "Everybody's so damn worried about the damn black South Africans and the damn Indians, and nobody gives a damn about the Irish Catholics!"

One woman I told about this experience said, "Sounds like they're for amnesty for everyone except who attends Amnesty International meetings."

I left, and I don't need to say that I never went back. I remain committed to Amnesty International to this day, and in Amnesty's defense, I've met a number of worthy people committed to the work of the organization. I'd like to think the weird grumpy old guy and everything else about this particular meeting were atypical, except I also know of other cases where peace-and-justice meetings went off the rails.

I know a man who had an experience similar to mine, but with an anti-nuke group. He had a radio show at the time, and invited some of the members to be guests on his show, and got a reaction somewhere between indifference and hostility. Rumor later got back to him that the group assumed he must be some kind of cop or spy. They just couldn't conceive of him being actually interested in the work of the anti-nuclear movement.

I also know a woman who attended a peace group's meeting, only to be told there was nothing for her to do--nothing. Everything the group was working on, someone else was "doing that." 

I offer these examples as a cautionary tale during this time of "No Kings," of anti-ICE actions, of people being urged to "show up," to contribute in anyway they can to a fairer world. Beware of weird guys, at weird meetings, that resent strangers "showing up." 

I was no Kamala Fangirl, Maybe Neither Was America

When I see election results of these past few months, the double-digit swings in Democrats’ favor, I wonder where were all these double-digit swings when we really needed them in November 2024?

My intention isn’t to bash voters, Democrats, or Kamala Harris--the Democrats' nominee for president in '24--I’m asking because we must know, or the party risks losing those votes again. Why didn’t the 80 million voters who enabled Joe Biden to knock out Donald Trump in 2020 come back and help Harris knock him out in ‘24?

Only about 75 million voters came out for Harris, while Trump got 77 million. That's 5 million voters who, for whatever reason, couldn't be bothered to vote for her. Since her defeat, I’ve wondered if my lack of enthusiasm about her mirrored America’s lack of enthusiasm about her. Yes, I voted for her, but unenthusiastically. 

I will not address the party’s decision to change horses in mid-stream, to suddenly dump a sitting president—who’d proven he could beat Trump—and replace him with the only other person who could continue what had been the Biden-Harris campaign. When the change was made, the polls were in Harris’ favor. It’s sad to conclude that, perhaps, the more that voters learned about her, the less they liked her.

I’ve been familiar with Harris since she was a controversial district attorney running to be Attorney General of California, and to me her campaign style has long demonstrated a sense of entitlement, as opposed to inclusiveness. Her resume has the look of an individual who’s always looking for a promotion.

We admit Harris, as a candidate, faced two built-in challenges:  a person of color, and a she. A sad but simple fact is, a substantial number of voters will not vote for a woman or a person of color. How many votes Harris lost for the simple reason she wasn’t an old white dude like Biden, we’ll never know. Her loss cannot be completely blamed on her sex and race, but we must acknowledge the reality.

Obama was able to overcome the racial bias that motivates a certain stream of American culture—partly because blacks supported him in numbers not seen since, and partly because many progressives, many blacks, and many whites, were excited to vote for the first black president. It may be DEI but it was good DEI. Harris didn't generate that level of interest.

Perhaps one potential explanation concerns her approach to racial identity. She’s of mixed parentage, but insists she’s black. Obama has mixed parentage, too, but a large portion of America apparently accepts him as a black man with a white mother. Harris’ ancestry is more complicated, harder for race-obsessed conservatives to get their heads around.

Harris is black—by the old one-drop rule--but she's more than half-Caucasian—her Indian-American mother is identified as “Caucasian” on Harris’ birth certificate. Her father is identified as "Jamaican" (technically not a race)--and he’s of mixed racial ancestry.

When Harris addresses race, she often adopts what strikes me as a tone of entitlement, as opposed to inclusiveness. She started school about the time her mother moved to Berkeley around 1970, when that liberal community was voluntarily desegregating its schools through a controversial busing project. Yet Harris often brags about being in the second class of students bussed to integrate Berkeley's schools like it makes her one of the Little Rock Nine.

She also demonstrated a potential lack of perspective about American identity politics during a radio appearance with Charlemagne tha God in 2019. She tittered about how she used to "inhale" marijuana and supported legalization because, "I'm Jamaican.”

You’re not Jamaican, Lady, you’re American.

Her own father responded, "My deceased parents must be turning in their graves right now to see their family's name, reputation, and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not, with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics."

To say nothing of how she surely turned off voters who oppose marijuana decriminalization.

A similar sense of entitlement may describe her debate style. When Democratic candidates for president debated on TV, in late 2019, Harris was among several candidates who broke debate rules, as if her face time was the only thing. The debate quickly became a Spartan-style shouting match. She admonished the others, "America does not want to witness a food fight. They want to know how we're going to put food on their table."

Barely was that out of her mouth, though, when she began her own Spartan-style shouting match with Biden, relentlessly haranguing him about busing in the seventies—nothing to do with putting food on anybody’s table. Every time he tried to answer, she interrupted--which she’d just scolded others about.

What issue may have hurt Harris’ presidential campaign the most, though, was how she failed to counter Trump’s bluster about how she’d get us into war. True, she couldn’t exactly publicly disagree with the policies of the administration she served, and the handling of the Gaza situation wasn’t one of the Biden adminstration’s strong points. Except she could have said something like, “We must find a solution equitable to the interests of Israel and the human rights of the people of Gaza.” 

Instead her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention showed typical Washington-insider militarism, "As Commander-in-Chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world." Most lethal? Did she think we were in danger of not having the “strongest, most lethal” fighting force all of a sudden?

Harris chose to follow the Washington establishment’s framing of bipartisanship as well as its framing of war and peace. Such was demonstrated during a radio interview in which she was questioned closely and at length about whether she'd have a Republican in her cabinet.

She could've answered, "I will select my cabinet members by their qualifications, not their political affiliation.” She never did, but she and the interviewer treated the subject as a hot issue, belaboring how she would put a Republican on her cabinet, nothing about Gaza, or putting food on the table.

Then in the final critical days before the election, she did little but make appearances with Republicans, to the point where many Democrats may have wondered, “What party is this woman campaigning for, again?”

Alright, so she thought she had sufficient Democratic votes, so court Republicans, too. Except Harris being pals with the likes of Dick Cheney had to cost her more votes than she gained. Many, many Democrats who still smart from the Iraq-Afghanistan era will no sooner have anything to do with Dick Cheney, or anyone who has anything to do with Dick Cheney, than with Donald Trump.

On one hand, we could say, don’t belabor what happened in 2024, that’s water under the bridge. On the other hand, the anti-Trump vote won’t stick around on its own. It didn’t stick around in 2024 and we need it to stick around in 2026.