WomenPowerPeace

Wee bit of good news from the UN

WAND is an ngo at the UN, and the lovely Sayre Sheldon is our rep there.

She alerted us that this resolution was coming up. And it passed! Which is a good thing.

UN: Finally, a Step Toward Confronting Rape in War
Security Council Takes Action to Identify and Help End Sexual Violence
(New York, June 19, 2008) – The UN Security Council’s new resolution on sexual violence is a historic achievement for a body that has all too often ignored the plight of women and girls in conflict, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch applauds the council for setting out in the resolution a clear path to systematic information-gathering on sexual violence. Until now, the Security Council has asked for information on such violence only in selected cases.

“By finally recognizing that it needs to gather detailed information, the Security Council took a major step toward confronting the grim reality of sexual violence in conflict,” said Marianne Mollmann, women’s rights advocate at Human Rights Watch. “And that reality means that every day many women and girls will be raped.” 

The resolution was initiated by the United States and adopted on June 19, by unanimous vote, after a debate presided over by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the United Nations. Key provisions include a call for concrete benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of policies to prevent sexual violence; the possibility of sanctions against perpetrators of sexual violence; and a directive to the secretary-general of the United Nations to gather information on the prevalence of sexual violence in conflict. The resolution also calls for UN peacekeeping forces to better prepare themselves to protect civilians against sexual violence, and underscores the vital importance of women participating in preventing conflict, maintaining peace and security, and building peace post-conflict. It also calls for better implementation of the UN’s “zero tolerance” policy on sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeeping forces. 

Actually, I do NOT think I can dance

I think I can jump around a dancefloor like a sweaty crazed momoftwo, oh yes I do. You can't take that away from me. But dance like the kick ass women on "So You Think You Can Dance"? nuh huh.

You want powerful women? Watch that show. Right now. Women judges who are smart, vocal, feminine, and merciless. Women dancers who are lithe, strong, athletic, ambitious, bossy, powerful. Women choreographers who are smart, creative, demanding, and funny looking. I mean that in a good way.

It's one of the few shows on TV that celebrates the full range of what women can be and accomplish. I'm not kidding.

And now for something completely different: Am I the only girl in America who found this movie just plain silly?

I expected to like the movie version of "Sex and the City," I swear. I find the TV show witty and fun, if flawed. I like shoes and pedicures and boys and dresses. So what happened?

Because the big screen version is just kinda icky. It's glossy and witty and just kinda icky.

In no particular order:

• Okay, so she says upfront that she's one of the girls who come to NYC looking for the two Ls: labels and love. But seriously. And that's all they do in the movie -- shop and relate to men. I dunno -- I know a lot of girls who look for a whole lot more in the city. Money. Fame. Professional success. Opportunities to make the world not so bad. Sex (as opposed to love). Rock clubs. Power. Friendship...
• Women are just as damn complicated as men, and the show sorta implies this with these token careers: lawyer! writer! PR maven! gallery director! But while we hear some about this on TV, in the movie, it's all background noise. The gallery director is reduced to a glowing mama who has "everything she always wanted." (apparently, she didn't really want art or power or an income of her own, that was just to snare a man) The PR maven has thrown her whole career behind one man, her man (why?). The writer writes only about love, in all its wonder. And the lawyer... well, we know she cares about her work because she's grumpy and tired. But really, she's just unforgiving and stern.
• Um, I love fashion, too. But -- who the hell has the time and the money for ALL THAT? and at what point do you stop looking cool and start looking ridiculous? And why are they all coordinated now? their clothes used to reflect their personalities, now they dress like the Spice Girls.
• Is it really beyond them to think about the provenance of the things they wear?
• Why is it demeaning to cook (Carrie doesn't use her oven), but not to obsess over a man til you can't walk?
• The guy was going to GO BACK TO THE WEDDING. Wtf. Give him a break. You go into mourning cuz he had cold feet for a half hour?
• You go into mourning cuz why? Okay, you didn't get your man. But the long period of sleeping and depression and self-pity. Hey! Look at your life! Money, fame, shoes, girlfriends, Mexican luxury... Sheesh.
• So one African American woman shows up. As what? Mammy from "Gone with the Wind." Miss Carrie.  She nurtures Carrie back to life by doing her household chores. Seriously? She doesn't go out with the girls, or have a career of her own, or show Carrie a thing or two. She cleans her house and then leaves to get married. Oy vey.
• Carrie does one nice thing that takes a lot of screen time. She takes the subway downtown to visit a friend on New Year's Eve. I'm not kidding. It's like she's trekking to Machuu Pichu to bring medicine to sick babies the way they play it. She can't get a cab! Her shoes almost get wet! It's horrific.
• After all that -- they end up with the men anyway?

President declares end to the war.

April 1, 2008 (that's April Fool's Day) | If we made the world. 

We win the war!
"Mission accomplished," says a jubilant president as he celebrates the end of homelessness and hunger. "Five years and $500 billion, but it was worth it! History will prove us right."

Surrounded by residents of New Orleans who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the president declared the war on poverty is won -- five years after it began.

"It was a hard fight," the president said. "And I know it was unpopular at times. I mean, it cost more than anyone expected -- $500 billion for poor people! You shoulda seen the VP's face as he watched the counter keep ticking up! That Dick. But it was really about security and liberty, and makes it possible for us to face the future with hope and high moral standing in the world."

When the war began, the administration estimated that it would take just a few months and cost a few billion at most. They were surprised to discover how many people were unemployed, undereducated, malnourished, violently abused, homeless, ill, and mentally challenged. Critics point to faulty intelligence. "I believe it had something to do with the rose-colored glasses," says Karl Rove, who now runs a soup kitchen in downtown Milwaukee, WI.

"Heh," said the president, "Who knew that 47 million Americans (16 percent of the population), were without health insurance? That cost a bundle, I can tell ya. But how can we make a strong country if people face economic disaster if they fall ill? That's just not right, not in the richest country in the world."

The president's plan to make it possible for everyone to find a job, housing, food, and health care came under intense attack by large corporations and extremely rich people. To fund some of the programs, the president shifted billions from outdated programs that kept profits really high. He cut weapons systems that still don't work, years after their original development to fight the Cold War (such as missile defense and the Osprey helicopter).

In response, Halliburton and Raytheon spent hundreds of millions on a media campaign to prove that the president was making the U.S. vulnerable to catastrophic attacks from the Soviet Union. In 2004, a small child in the crowd pointed out that the Cold War ended before he was born -- in 1991 -- adding, "The Vice President looks chilly with no clothes."

The president responded by saying that a real security plan was about much more than a huge military machine. It was about a healthy and educated populace -- ready to face the future, respond to future attacks, and pursue an intelligent foreign policy. "You know what I believe? That national security means just that: making our citizens secure in their own homes. In the long run, it was a wise investment in peace and prosperity. History will prove us right."

The president built a broad coalition of organizations and individuals who've been working with actual not-rich human beings for decades. "This man was willing to go out on a limb and fight for what he believes, no matter how much pressure he got from the powers that be," said Marian Right, president of a children's poverty group.

"He would hear the defense contractors chanting outside the White House, and he'd just chuckle, and say 'SO?' It's that kind of courage, to stand up to the few rich and mighty who are only interested in preserving their own kingdoms, that marks a true leader of the people. Dare I say it, a true democrat, one who cares more for the welfare of the many than the interests of the few."

As lobbyists from Raytheon and Halliburton demonstrated around downtown Washington and in other parts of the country, the president spoke at a rally in New Orleans to mark the war anniversary. He gave a strong defense of his decision to go to war and continue it and linked the fighting here to the global battle against poverty.

Addressing Global Poverty

"Look, I know how hungry for blood we all were after 9/11. We wanted to find an enemy, and strike a blow. But it was plain to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the terrorists didn't come from one country, from one region, from one place at all. We couldn't defeat them with a military strike. Instead, we had to take a good hard look at how they were grown and educated into being. And the answer was pretty much: poverty and fear and injustice. So we set about fighting the things that made those terrorists. We decided to fight a war that would improve people's lives, rather than destroy them."

The president and Congress admit that ending poverty around the globe will take longer than five years; but is essential to a future without constant war. Estimates go as high as $3 trillion. "Are we ready for that?" asked the president. "What choice do we have? This is my legacy: a commitment to peace and well being."

The surge was necessary and successful

After Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, the president pursued a "surge" of resources to fund the war. He made the tough decision to raise taxes (rather than increasing the deficit and getting future generations into massive debt) and rebuild the infrastructure of the city's poorest regions.

"We were making good progress all over the country until that darned hurricane broke the levies," said the president. "But then people were really hurting, and we needed to rebuild houses and schools and roads and hospitals. I know it was hard for the families of the workers who were paid to do that massive cleanup; they missed their loved ones for weeks at a time, and the WiFi was not what it should have been. But national service means serving your country."

Asking for sacrifice

The president acknowledges that diverting funds from no-bid defense contracts to human beings who, like, can't see or something, made some folks unhappy.

"I feel the pain of the defense contractors, I do. I mean, I watch TV, I see the golf courses getting brown while we divert fresh water to citizens in need. It hurts. It hurts all of us. But in the long run, I turn to the good book; and Jesus clearly said, 'go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.' I want to play golf with my friends in heaven, so I'm helping us all get there! I hear the fourteenth hole is to die for. You know, literally."

The president apologized that sales of super luxury yachts and gigantic summer homes on Nantucket were down over the last few years. "Now that the economy is so much stronger than it was five years ago, though, I'm sure the very richest will get back to being super fantastically rich in a little while. And they'll be able to enjoy it more, knowing the super poor won't be asking them for handouts on their way to the opera."

And he cited Jesus again: "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you."

Noting that crime is down; world opinion of the U.S. is way up; the roots or terrorism are being cut off; and we've saved an estimate of 4,000 lives (and 30,000 injuries), the president summed it up:

"The world is better, and the United States of America is safer."*

---

The president and the queen paused from eating cucumber sandwiches long enough to help two guys move back into a house in New Orleans. Now everyone has a place. Nice.

1 National Coalition on Health Care: Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005, the latest government data available. The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 9 million people since 2000. The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.

2 Watch Dick's face as he says "So?" in response to White House correspondent Martha Raddatz saying two thirds of Americans oppose the Iraq war.

3 MSNBC: "As anti-war activists demonstrated around downtown Washington and in other parts of the country, the president spoke at the Defense Department to mark the war anniversary. He gave a strong defense of his decision to go to war and continue it and linked the fighting there to the global battle against al-Qaida."

4 "The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More," Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz in the Washington Post

* MSNBC

Uh Oh. He IS still the commander in chief...

I've always figured he can't be that stupid; and he can't be that important; so I don't have much to say about W personally. His politics, okay.

But then he had this press conference yesterday, and it was just too hard to look away...

The Globe reported; some bits and pieces:

- Olivier Knox of Agence France-Presse asked Bush why he was going to the Olympics in China despite the country's human rights record.

"I'm a sports fan," the president reasoned...

- Peter Maer of CBS News Radio asked what seemed to be a straightforward question. "What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline"

"Wait, what did you just say?" the shocked president interrupted. "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?"

"A number of analysts are predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline," Maer explained.

You could've knocked Bush over with a feather.

"Oh, yeah?" he said. "That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."...

- NBC's David Gregory invited him to criticize Democratic presidential candidates for not knowing much about the expected new Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev.

"I don't know much about Medvedev, either," Bush replied.

What goes up, is gonna, well, COME DOWN

IS WHY WE SHOULDN'T PUT DANGEROUS STUFF IN SPACE. Gravity? Physics? Time? Seem like pretty certain laws to me. So if you send something up into the sky...

So some of the guys who love their war toys are itchin' to send weapons up into space. ITCHIN'. Saying no to this is not some wacky liberal urge to keep peace in the sky; it's common sense.

So now we got that spy satellite full of noxious stuff, and it might fall down on its own soon, so we get the chance to shoot it down! Fun! Rather than regarding this as a warning, we're treating it as an opportunity to play some more!

We're not very smart sometimes, are we?

David Wright, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said "there's a real concern among people here and in other nations that the U.S. is trying to develop space weapons in the guise of other systems." The plan to shoot down the satellite, he says, "fuels the flames for those who think we want to build anti-satellite capabilities." Both China and Russia have criticized the planned satellite intercept.

Paul B. Stares, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has written books about anti-satellite technology and space security, said the skills to be demonstrated in the attempt emphasize how important military activity in space has become. "It's hard to imagine how, as the use of space for military purposes increases, the interest in anti-satellite weaponry won't increase at a similar pace," he said.

Stares said that the first American anti-satellite weapons in the early 1960s were nuclear-armed and designed to destroy or disable satellites across vast expanses of space. Nuclear tests in the atmosphere, however, made clear that these weapons were impractical, because the explosions knocked out useful satellites as well as the targets and severely disrupted ground communications. The United States and former Soviet Union signed a treaty banning nuclear tests in space in 1963.

The State of our Union is: Troubled

From Rev. Amanda Hendler-Voss, WAND Faith Communities Coordinator:

What did I like best about last night's State of the Union?  The first two words, "Madame Speaker..."  Though I listen every year on NPR, I can only imagine what a difference it makes for the viewers at home to finally have a woman in one of the two chairs seated behind Bush. 

The speech, unfortunately, was downright depressing.  Even Bush's speech writers can't seem to give him an aura of intelligence, leadership, and dignity after 7 years in the White House.  And that's flat out troubling.  I recall after 9/11 listening to a broadcast of Bill Clinton speaking about the terrorist attacks and where to go from here and it was absolutely brilliant.  It took my breath away, remembering the days when we had someone in the White House who was smart and ambitious, someone who worked hard and had a deep love of his job.  I just don't get that from Bush...

The truth is, the state of our union is looking up.  This is the last time that George W. Bush will deliver a state of the union address, and that is something.  We have some mighty fine candidates for the presidency, despite the fact that none of them are talking about the elephant in the room...defense spending.

Yes, defense spending.  Oh, defense spending.  We wonder why our economy is in a downturn, yet we invest in outdated weapons systems and no one talks about "bloat."  We are throwing billions of dollars at a war in Iraq that holds no promise to fix the political problems troubling that nation.  Bush spoke last night of making tax cuts permanent and spending our tax dollars wisely, stating, "families have to balance their budgets, so should their government." 

So let me get this straight: Bush wants to continue to spend, spend, spend in Iraq with no benchmarks for success, no plan for an end in sight?  He threw out a few ideas for funding moderate domestic programs and aid abroad.  And he wants to make the tax cuts permanent.  Well where in the world will the money for all of this come from? 

Answer: from our children and their children, that's where.  Bush doesn't demand accountability in Iraq and no one's holding him accountable here at home either.  The tax cuts he would like to make permanent have nothing to do with an economic stimulus...they don't sunset until 2010!  And make no mistake: the purpose of the tax cuts is to help the wealthy, who do not need the help but may in fact have too much going on in their lives to send a check or money order back to the IRS, as Bush suggested (I won't miss his sense of humor).  So he wants to reduce our revenue. 

Yet he also wants to offer the appearance of compassion by increasing funding for AIDS, dispatching "armies of compassion" to the Gulf coast, leading the fight against global poverty, hunger, and disease.  Oh, and he also wants peace in the Middle East. 

The thing about leadership is that one faces a buffet of options and one must prioritize.  The Bush priority for the last 7 years has been war.  And so the state of our union is troubled as infrastructure collapses, the economy weakens, and we still haven't solved the major problems of social security, comprehensive immigration reform, public education, and making health care accessible to all (at the very least, our children). 

President Bush has had 7 years to get some of these things done.  He had a Republican congress for a time.  He alluded to ideas that he brought forward on tough issues.  The problem is, he has not exhibited the leadership to move anything forward, to create consensus, to cooperate and compromise when necessary, to get the job done.  As the New York Times said this morning, "the nation yearns for leadership." 

It's not that we can't be a compassionate nation, that curbs our consumerism, learns to save a few dollars, lives more sustainably, leads the world in meeting the challenges of our time, like global warming and disease, terrorism and nuclear weapons, poverty and genocide. 

We have not been asked to be our best selves in a very long time.  We've lacked a leader who brings people together and inspires change.  We have been told that spending more money is our most urgent duty as patriotic Americans.  But the truth is, we aren't as much concerned with "defending the American way of life" as we are with adapting our way of life so that the earth's fever breaks and our planet survives.  We aren't so much concerned with "defending the American way of life" as we are with caring for the most vulnerable among us so that our society doesn't collapse from under us.   We aren't so much concerned with "spreading democracy abroad" like some imperialistic gospel as we are with preventing genocide, closing the gap between the haves and the have nots, and empowering women in every nation to take a lead in healing the problems within their own countries. 

We're a nation that wants our kids to have health coverage, a good education, a stable home.  We're a nation that doesn't believe we should be building a new generation of nukes.  Mostly, we're a nation that wants to be a part of the struggle against the greatest challenges of our time.  We just need a leader who will take us there.  I think it's safe to say we'll need to wait one more year.   

What did I like best about last night's State of the Union?  The first two words, "Madame Speaker..."  Though I listen every year on NPR, I can only imagine what a difference it makes for the viewers at home to finally have a woman in one of the two chairs seated behind Bush. 

The speech, unfortunately, was downright depressing.  Even Bush's speech writers can't seem to give him an aura of intelligence, leadership, and dignity after 7 years in the White House.  And that's flat out troubling.  I recall after 9/11 listening to a broadcast of Bill Clinton speaking about the terrorist attacks and where to go from here and it was absolutely brilliant.  It took my breath away, remembering the days when we had someone in the White House who was smart and ambitious, someone who worked hard and had a deep love of his job.  I just don't get that from Bush...

The truth is, the state of our union is looking up.  This is the last time that George W. Bush will deliver a state of the union address, and that is something.  We have some mighty fine candidates for the presidency, despite the fact that none of them are talking about the elephant in the room...defense spending.

Yes, defense spending.  Oh, defense spending.  We wonder why our economy is in a downturn, yet we invest in outdated weapons systems and no one talks about "bloat."  We are throwing billions of dollars at a war in Iraq that holds no promise to fix the political problems troubling that nation.  Bush spoke last night of making tax cuts permanent and spending our tax dollars wisely, stating, "families have to balance their budgets, so should their government." 

So let me get this straight: Bush wants to continue to spend, spend, spend in Iraq with no benchmarks for success, no plan for an end in sight?  He threw out a few ideas for funding moderate domestic programs and aid abroad.  And he wants to make the tax cuts permanent.  Well where in the world will the money for all of this come from? 

Answer: from our children and their children, that's where.  Bush doesn't demand accountability in Iraq and no one's holding him accountable here at home either.  The tax cuts he would like to make permanent have nothing to do with an economic stimulus...they don't sunset until 2010!  And make no mistake: the purpose of the tax cuts is to help the wealthy, who do not need the help but may in fact have too much going on in their lives to send a check or money order back to the IRS, as Bush suggested (I won't miss his sense of humor).  So he wants to reduce our revenue. 

Yet he also wants to offer the appearance of compassion by increasing funding for AIDS, dispatching "armies of compassion" to the Gulf coast, leading the fight against global poverty, hunger, and disease.  Oh, and he also wants peace in the Middle East. 

The thing about leadership is that one faces a buffet of options and one must prioritize.  The Bush priority for the last 7 years has been war.  And so the state of our union is troubled as infrastructure collapses, the economy weakens, and we still haven't solved the major problems of social security, comprehensive immigration reform, public education, and making health care accessible to all (at the very least, our children). 

President Bush has had 7 years to get some of these things done.  He had a Republican congress for a time.  He alluded to ideas that he brought forward on tough issues.  The problem is, he has not exhibited the leadership to move anything forward, to create consensus, to cooperate and compromise when necessary, to get the job done.  As the New York Times said this morning, "the nation yearns for leadership." 

It's not that we can't be a compassionate nation, that curbs our consumerism, learns to save a few dollars, lives more sustainably, leads the world in meeting the challenges of our time, like global warming and disease, terrorism and nuclear weapons, poverty and genocide. 

We have not been asked to be our best selves in a very long time.  We've lacked a leader who brings people together and inspires change.  We have been told that spending more money is our most urgent duty as patriotic Americans.  But the truth is, we aren't as much concerned with "defending the American way of life" as we are with adapting our way of life so that the earth's fever breaks and our planet survives.  We aren't so much concerned with "defending the American way of life" as we are with caring for the most vulnerable among us so that our society doesn't collapse from under us.   We aren't so much concerned with "spreading democracy abroad" like some imperialistic gospel as we are with preventing genocide, closing the gap between the haves and the have nots, and empowering women in every nation to take a lead in healing the problems within their own countries. 

We're a nation that wants our kids to have health coverage, a good education, a stable home.  We're a nation that doesn't believe we should be building a new generation of nukes.  Mostly, we're a nation that wants to be a part of the struggle against the greatest challenges of our time.  We just need a leader who will take us there.  I think it's safe to say we'll need to wait one more year.   

Steaming mad about the state of our union

Today, I'm steaming. That dang address. That dang man.

Conservatives like to tout some basic principles. Two I keep hearing in the primary campaigns:

National security. Fiscal responsibility.

Which, I have to say, just about makes steam come out of my ears.

Because, look: I'm a mommy of 2 little kids, trying to make on a solidly middle class salary. So two things that matter to me:

National security. Fiscal responsibility.

First: I am a lioness when it comes to those kids, as fiercely protective as if I were wandering around the jungle. So I worry about our fragile national "peace." A lot. I think we need to do everything we possibly can to make our country safe and secure. Bad people want to hurt us -- want to hurt MY KIDS -- and I want to stop them.

But W and his cronies have made one unholy mess of our national security. When he stands up there and waxes on about terrorism and surge and WMDs and Iraq and Iran, I have to stop myself from SCREAMING AT THE TELEVISION.

I was barely conscious of the Cold War, but I do remember being relieved when the Wall came down and we eased our fingers back from the nuclear hair trigger a bit. And then: relative peace.

But we kept on pouring money into the Pentagon as if the USSR was still massing its warheads in Cuba. Because we were in that groove: money for missile defense, money for the huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, money for no-bid contracts for Raytheon and Halliburton and Boeing. Money for obsolete threats, money for defense contractors, crazy crazy money, to keep on building up a huge military industrial complex -- because it had an engine all its own. Just like Eisenhower predicted. And because we sorta took our eyes off the ball, right? Took our big ole military machine for granted, figured it was keeping us safe...

And then something awful happened, and we were attacked, and our people fell out of buildings, and planes fell out of the sky, and I was terrified for my newborn infant in those months after 9/11.

So I wanted our government to marshal its forces and make us more secure from these new, very real, very crazy people who wanted to hurt me and my kids. And I figured: we would take stock of the new world, and take all that crazy money, and pour it into things that would actually make us safe.

So many people have great ideas about this new world. We could address the root causes of terrorism and poverty with things like economic aid, state-building assistance, diplomacy, language training. We could address our own faults with things like alternative energy research (so we're not crazy dependent on foreign oil). We could address our status in the world with things like aid to starving children, troops to help stop genocide.

We have billions upon billions to spend on these things! We could build a new world! We could enhance our moral standing! We could give healthcare to our kids, rebuild our crumbling bridges...

Ack! What did we do instead? We took that big military stick, and bashed people over the head with it. Are these even the people who hurt us in the first place? NO!

We dropped bombs on a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We did it, and then found out we had wrong intelligence. We did it, and killed thousands of innocents in the process. We did it, and then found out we had made a mess of a country, and had to stay indefinitely to pick up the pieces. We did it, and killed thousands of our own men and women. We did it, and poured billions and billions of dollars into it -- and found out there's no way to end it. We did it, and angered our friends AND enemies; created a training ground for terrorists (as well as a new reason for them to be); and messed up a whole region of the world.

We did it, and I am more frightened now than I was before we did it.

THIS is national security? This is stupidity.

Okay, phew, second: You can rail on all you want about the size of government and welfare and domestic programs... but the truth, at the end of the day, is that, far and away, the biggest problem with our federal budget is the OUTSIZED OUTDATED CRAZY Pentagon budget. It accounts for OVER HALF of our discretionary budget. If you rein that sucker in, you've got billions and billions to spend on things that ACTUALLY MAKE US SAFER. Actual national security.

And that Pentagon budget? It doesn't even include the wars! We pay for those with whopping crazy supplemental budget. Or the veterans! Another budget line altogether. Or international programs!

We waste billions every day! Look at the war! $720 million a day!  A DAY.

I shop at Goodwill, I buy bruised fruit, I turn the heat way down... because I don't like to waste money. But I've already sent $20,000 to this war. On top of all my other taxes! I have a pretty accommodating attitude about taxes, they keep our society functioning, but I don't want to pay for this endless, pointless, deadly war.

Fiscal responsibility. Not. National security. Not.

Instead, we're more insecure, more unstable, and very much poorer.

See? Steaming mad.

We could do this so much better. We have the means, the money, the energy, the moral compass.

But we have been wasting it all: we're fiscally irresponsible and nationally endangered.

THAT"S the state of our union.

While W thinks about bombing Iran -- what do the Iranians think about?

W and Dick consider bombing a country full of people, apparently not concerned enough about the implications to be throwing every diplomatic trick in the book at it. Shouldn't we be concentrating all our resources there before we go and kill a bunch of children?

So people like me are spending loads of time trying to mobilize public opinion and outrage; and have some influence on how Congress and the administration proceed.

What are the people who live there thinking about? I just got an email last night. It is deeply saddening...

I am writing to you from Vermont, where I live with my husband. I have been working in New England for a number of years as an advocate in women's shelters. As a feminist activist married to an Iranian man, the current political climate has left me terrified for the future of our family in Iran, and impelled me to further action (to keep the US from bombing Iran).

Please find below a plea, written by my husband on behalf of his family. I understand that this may not be the appropriate forum, but please feel free to correspond with me via e-mail if this issue or these words could be included in your newlsetter, or useful in future actions. Thank you for your time and attention! Jordan

A plea for women's lives 'there'

To feminist women and men and women who vote:

I plea for the lives of women in Iran. I have an old grandmother I respect immensely, not just for who she has been for me, but for the woman she has been for herself. Born in 1910, illiterate, unschooled, and nonacademic, she has always been a living feminist for what I know of the term through literature, schools, and academia in the West. I also have five sisters, my mother and many aunts. And I know that there are millions of other women living in Iran. Iraqi women were mostly Muslim, and I personally don't know of their feminist thoughts.

Okay; I humbly admit that most women in Iran are also Muslim and I don't know of their feminist thoughts either; in fact, I know nothing beyond the fact that they are women/humans. But I know my grandmother-mother and sisters too well to say that although not Christian, at least they are not Muslim either, if that is upsetting.

And I know well that my grandmother is a hearty feminist who knows how to resist important matters, but can't write. So I write on her behalf to ask you to spare her children, my sisters, mother, and my aunts. My grandmother will die from the shock of your ability to commit such crimes, if you do, but her many daughters and grand-daughters and great-grand-daughters will suffer as the result of the war that often time destroys women and children the most. When voting for a candidate who seeks confrontation and war with Iran, please consider my grandmother, sisters, and mother; grant them the same womanhood you have and count them human enough; do not wish them death that comes with the drop of your ballot in the box, the vote that could well turn into bombs in hands of your next president.

My well compensated professional sports franchise is superior to your highly paid professional sports franchise

And it took Schilling less than a day to abandon the team for more money.