What’s better: a military-based economy or a peace-based economy?  Jason Sibert of the Peace Economy Project, says that cutting military spending and funding human needs would create a peace economy, which would work better and become more effective and prosperous.

Sibert, a Navy veteran and the recently hired executive director of the St. Louis Peace Economy Project, has an extensive background in journalism and reporting, from sports to news. Whether writing for the Java Journal or the Progressive Populist, he reported on topics and issues he is passionate about. He is the only paid employee of the Peace Economy Project.

Since its founding in 1977 by Sister Mary Ann McGivern, the Peace Economy Project has raised questions about how much money our country spends on the military and whether those funds could be better used to support middle- and lower-class people. Basically, what it comes down to is more spending on human needs and less on guns, nuclear weapons, and F-35s. A simple question this project asks is: What should we spend money on – guns or butter?

From the Cold War to the present, the Peace Economy Project has addressed many issues: It has criticized the military-industrial complex and advocated for for healthcare, education and infrastructure reform. Not affiliated with a political party, the organization will criticize any president of any party, says Sibert.

An unchecked military-industrial complex brings many hazards, says Sibert. Overspending on the military causes the rest of the economy to suffer. Other countries allocate more money to development, and that attracts high-tech companies. Overspending on the military has also resulted in cuts to education. In addition, noting that 40 percent of US workers earn less than $15 per hour, the Peace Economy Project has become involved in the Show-Me $15 initiative aimed at raising the minimum wage in St. Louis.

“We rot internally when we spend everything on the military,” says Sibert.

Legislative and policy changes are important in the quest for a peace economy, says Sibert. So, in addition to advocating for ideas, his organization is often out on the streets collecting signatures, and then visiting legislators to show them what their constituents want.

Critics of the Peace Economy Project contend that the military is the only decent thing about America. But Sibert argues that the United States can spend less money on military, while still having an effective and beneficial foreign policy. Sibert notes that Switzerland has a smaller military, which is cheaper, but is in need of natural resources, and that other countries depend on trade. Sibert’s idea of a better world economy would be to see more cooperation between power nations, such as Russia, China, the European Union, and the United States, as well as more cooperation in the United Nations.

“We all live in the same world,” says Sibert, “which explains why we need an economy that focuses on  human needs and peace for everyone.”

The Peace Economy Project collaborates with several other organizations, including the St. Louis Chapter of the United Nations Association, Veterans for Peace, and Jobs With Justice. Support for the Peace Economy Project comes from membership dues and individual donors.

Sibert hopes that more citizens will become aware of the need to change from a military-based economy to a more stable, peace-based economy. To do that, we need to become more educated, by reading and watching the news, paying attention to the world, and knowing the political pushes and pulls of it.

“The State Department and its diplomats are as important as the generals,” he says. “Problems need to be solved diplomatically instead of lethally.”

The post Guns or butter? Butter, says Peace Economy Project appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As a lifelong Democrat and now a high schooler, I have realized just how many of us there are in St. Louis, especially in the Trump era and the recent rise in youth activism regarding gun violence. Thus, St. Louis now has an organization dedicated to high school Democrats. We have had several meetings, met with many elected officials and public servants, and, on Saturday, July 14, endorsed five races in the upcoming August 7th primaries. This was a great way to get involved in the upcoming election and make your voice heard.

The races included US Senate, Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, St. Louis County Prosecutor, Missouri House District 79, and Missouri House District 81. At the meeting, the Democratic candidates of in these races each spoke for a few minutes and then answered audience. Afterwards, the high schoolers voted on whom they wanted to endorse.

The results were: Claire McCaskill for US Senate; Cort VanOstran for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District;  Wesley Bell for St. Louis County Prosecutor; Lakeysha Bosley for Missouri House District 79; and Travis Estes for Missouri House District 81.

The members of this organization have since campaigned for the endorsed candidates by knocking on doors, calling voters, and writing postcards. Of course, there has been much social media outreach as well. High schoolers love Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter, posting their support for candidates, and the candidates have made the endorsements evident on their pages.

Endorsements have become a bigger and more intense part of campaigns and races. Candidates strive to get as many endorsements as they can and then remind voters of them often. With this engagement, and with the desire to reach out to young voters, candidates in many of Missouri’s races wanted St. Louis High School Democrats’ endorsement. This competition for endorsements adds another level to a race, and endorsements can make or break a vote.

Claire McCaskill’s campaign sent a representative, and we endorsed her as the Democrat for US Senate. As for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, the Democrats who attended the meeting were Cort VanOstran, Mark Osmack, and Bill Haas. Most of their discussion focused on democratic ideals and defeating Ann Wagner. VanOstran talked about healthcare, Osmack about military experience and spending, and Haas about third grade reading levels and a violence prevention hotline.

Wesley Bell represented the St. Louis County Prosecutor race, while Bob McCulloch has again not showed up to a forum and meeting he has been invited to.

The other races were for two house districts that are both part of St. Louis City, 79 and 81. For the 79th district candidates, Lakeysha Bosley spoke about being a woman and representing the district, and J.P. Johnson talked about his experience in politics as an intern and field organizer. In the 81st race, Travis Estes noted that he is the only pro-choice candidate in the race and also that he has experience in the tech world and will use this to implement policy, such as gun registration. Steve Butz was not in attendance, but his campaign manager was. She talked about his views, morals, and experience.

The best part of this meeting was that Democrats were able to come together and talk about what is needed, especially in Missouri. We high schoolers were able to have a voice and be involved in these races, even though most of us won’t be able to vote.

The post St. Louis High School Democrats endorse candidates in area primaries appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Recently, our nation has seen an uprising of activism by young people like me. There has been a lot of talk about this generation being the future, and demanding change, and winning. There is also debate about whether young people should be called millennials or iGen or Gen Z. Regardless of what we are called, our generation has potential and power. From the March for Our Lives to Youth and Government, young people have already changed the current state of democracy and used their voices as active citizens. Unfortunately, there are kids in this generation who are addicted to their phones or juuls or who eat tide pods, but others—young activists and change agents—are trying to participate in conversations that affect them and not allow politicians to push them aside.

After 17 people were killed in Parkland, Florida, the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School began a movement, talking about their experience and demanding change in government policies.  Youth and Government, a national program of the YMCA, allows students to participate in mock government, learning how democracy should work and giving young people the opportunity to have a voice and use it in the greater community. Both of these activities, as well as  many other schools, organizations, and groups of young activists, have seen injustice. They want an opportunity to make differences in their communities and in the nation at-large.  The Parkland survivors are on a Road to Change, traveling the country, having discussions with activists , and registering people to vote. Students participating in Youth and Government, Model UN, and the Conference on National Affairs are writing and debating pieces of proposed legislation and resolutions, addressing the issues of our world, and building a community of future lawyers, lawmakers, and citizens invested in bettering democracy. Young people are in the media, in the streets protesting, interning for politicians, representing states and countries, and becoming sources of active citizenship, world awareness and political power.

While many are inspired by young people and the work they are doing, others do not see a place for them in government. Some have criticized the Road to Change, saying that it does not do much, that it is only talk, that most people are registered to vote so there is no action that will create change, and that  government should decide policy and law. Young people hear the arguments that they are too young, not mature enough, or incapable of having their own political views yet. Many are seen as being used by adults, politicians, or corporations. As a young person, I find that argument offensive, because we are fully able to have our own morals and stances and express them as we see fit; most of us are not being exploited by people who see opportunity in using young people to further an agenda.

As much as I love being an “activist” and going to town halls and marches and all of these events that are “demanding change,” I want to see action. I want to do something. I can talk with other like-minded people, make as many signs as I can, protest everywhere in my city, attend town halls and ask politicians questions, but our government and nation need to take action and let the young generation have a seat at the table. The best way we can do this is by voting, registering people to vote, trying to reform voting, voting corrupt politicians out and true public servants in, getting young people into the national debate, and carrying out our civic duty. We need to create an increase in voter turnout, pass laws that uphold our standards of democracy, expect accurate media reports, engage in civil discourse across party lines, support organizations that help minorities, and promote political actions that are more about human rights than money.

Young people are the future. We are starting now with this movement and activism, learning how to be leaders and then becoming them. We are being told that we can do great things, and change the world, and fix the problems of prior generations, but are we being given the resources and opportunities to prepare and to be effective? Whether people like it or not, young people’s voices will continue to call out party politics and focus on what is needed in society. Yes, we will continue to march and protest and talk, but we need to act and to not only demand change, but to make change happen. Our actions will make the difference.

The post We’re young, we’re politically active, and we’re coming to your town appeared first on Occasional Planet.