My name is Catherine Morgan, I'm a writer, nurse, mother, and founder of "The Political Voices of Women". This is a blog dedicated to inform and educate the voting public through articles, ideas, and links. It's also a way of giving myself a voice, rather than just sitting back and watching politics and my opinion go by.
--- I am now also at the Care2 Election Blog.
On Wednesday, stocks were down, oil prices were up, and new home sales were the lowest they have been in 13 years. But to spite all of this bad economic news, President Bush told a group at a printing company in Virginia, that the economy will soon be “stronger than ever before.” Really? Is Bush the only person in the country who doesn’t understand that when Americans get their “stimulus” checks they are not going to go on wild spending sprees?
Personally, I have always been against war and violence of any kind. I didn’t even let my children play with toy guns when they were young (not even water guns). Now I find myself worried that my son or daughter could actually be drafted someday. [Over a year ago I did a post addressing my concerns over a possible draft or mandatory military, it still seems very relevant today.] So yes, I am one of the people that are against this war in Iraq, and I have been since day one. And I really hate that we are now talking about the fifth anniversary of this horrific war. What I find myself wondering the most about today is, there seems to be no end in sight and five years from now we might be talking about the tenth anniversary of the Iraq war. How many people have to die? When will ‘man’ realize that war is not the answer?
People have been saying that we aren’t talking much about the Iraq war anymore, and I suspect it is because of the attention our tumbling economy is getting. I wonder? Has it occurred to anyone that $275 million a day spent in Iraq could be adding to the trouble we find our economy in? The National Priorities Project has a running tab of the cost of the Iraq war…
Let’s take a look at how this five year anniversary of the war in Iraq is being reported by the news and on the blogs.
The question isn’t entirely facetious. The war has nearly vanished from TV screens over the past few months, replaced by stories about the fascinating presidential campaign and faltering economy.
Yet Americans continue to fight and die there, five years after the war started in March 2003.
“It’s no big secret that this is a war that everyone has grown tired of,” said CNN correspondent Arwa Damon, whose documentary “On Deadly Ground: The Women of Iraq” is airing several times this month. “Iraqis are aware of it. They think it’s a story that people are tired of hearing about. That’s what makes our job more crucial.”
ABC News will draw attention to the war this week with the fifth edition of its “Where Things Stand” series, polling and interviewing Iraqis about what is happening in their country.
The war in Iraq has already cost the United States more than 400 billion dollars by the most conservative tally, but the total bill could surpass three trillion dollars, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
By the Pentagon’s count, 527 billion dollars were allocated from September 2001 through December 2007 to finance the war against terrorism, including 406 billion dollars for Iraq.
The Congressional Budget Office reported in October 2007 that Iraq accounts for 421 billion, or 70 percent, of the 602 billion dollars that the Congress has authorized for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The CBO estimates that the total cost of the two wars could reach 2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 including interest on the debt, with Iraq accounting for 70 percent of the spending, or 1.68 trillion dollars.
But even that pales by comparison with estimates put forward by Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard professor, in a book called “The Three Trillion Dollar War: the True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.”
This is from a post by Connie at Connie Talk. She has done a post on the Fifth Anniversary of the Iraq War.
Yesterday, March 15th, 2008, marked the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. To be honest, I don’t really understand why so many people call it an “anniversary”: a word that most often indicates something to celebrate. But, regardless, we have been occupying the Middle East in wartime for exactly five years now. There were thousands of people who showed up in Los Angeles, California, yesterday to march the length of Hollywood Boulevard.
Thanks to hard-working YouTuber’s, you can get a peek at the protests from many corners of the Earth without leaving your computer chair.
Check out Connie at Connie Talk, where she has videos of protests that took place all over the world.
So, what do you think? Did you originally support the war? Or were you against it? How are you feeling about it now? Do you see a light at the end of the tunnel? Has the Iraq war reduced the chances of terrorism in America? Do you feel safer because of the Iraq war? Do you want our next president to get us out of Iraq? Do you think it is possible to get out of Iraq? Do you think the $275 million being spent each day on the Iraq war, is contributing to the serious economic problems we are facing today?
These are just a few of the questions I wonder about, let me know how you feel in comments.
House Holds Secret Session on Spying Bill — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)
UPDATE: Bill passes House
For the first time in 25 years, the House held a closed session, to debate (what else?) the Bush Spying Bill…also known as FISA and the Telecom Amnesty Bill. Apparently, they will continue the debate openly later today, and then vote on it. However, even if the House version of this Bill does pass…Bush has promised to veto it. I was just thinking that our government is kinda like bumper cars at an amusement park, with George Bush at the power switch.
From the Associated Press - The House held a closed session Thursday for the first time in 25 years to discuss a hotly contested surveillance bill.
Republicans requested privacy for what they termed “an honest debate” on the new Democratic eavesdropping measure that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.
As the House cleared out its chambers this evening for a “sweep” by the Capitol Police to ensure that no listening devices were present for the closed session of the House tonight — for a debate about the secret surveillance of suspected terrorists — advocates invoked history.
The last secret session was called in 1983, on the support of Contras.
President Bush had a press conference today (see transcript of press conference). Of course, he continued his rhetoric and scare tactics over the FISA bill. It seems to me, if the government would just follow the law and get the proper warrants for these wire taps, this would be a non-issue. Congress can not allow a bill to pass that will aid government agencies to spy on any American citizen without a warrant. And telecommunication companies need to understand that they cannot spy on American citizens without the proper warrants. Bush would have us believe that we need this bill to protect us from the terrorists, but the truth is…this bill enables the government to spy on any one of us. This is a very slippery slope.
Bush also used this opportunity to remind us of his extensive knowledge of the economy, assuring Americans that we are not in a recession, but rather a “slowdown.” Phew! That was a close one. I can breath easier now…NOT. I wonder how people directly affected by the “slowdown” feel about the Bush assessment. Is anybody else sick of hearing about the “wording” of our current economic crisis? I don’t care if Bush calls it “raindrops on roses”, it doesn’t change the facts.
Is politics making you stressed? Anxious? Depressed? — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at BlogHer)
Some days are worse than others for me. Today was particularly bad, especially with that stupid, fear mongering, “scare us into calling our senators” ad I’ve been seeing all day. Here is a video clip of the ad with the “truth” pointed out…
I’ve written about this FISA issue so much already, it makes me want to just SCREAM! I guess that makes me a wee-bit stressed. Screaming at the t.v. would seem to be a good indication of a person’s anxiety level, don’t you think? Do you ever want to scream at your television?
Today I even let the “F-bomb” slip, and in front of my daughter no less. It was while I was on the phone talking about politics (specifically, my pet-peeve issue of Florida disenfranchisement), and my daughter was sitting in the same room. There goes my “Perfect Mother of the Year” award.
How would you rate your level of politically induced stress? Are you a one? And not affected at all over political issues? Or, are you a ten? And waiting patiently for the men with straight jackets to show up at your door? I don’t think I’m a ten yet. But, at this rate, I’m sure it won’t be too long before I am.
Here are a couple posts I found of other women who are stressing over politics…
As America’s anxiety grows, the economy not only is becoming a preeminent issue of the election, but the presidential candidates are responding to public anxiety about the current model of globalization. The Democratic candidates are reflecting back the public criticism of the status quo, but so far, they have avoided stating how an aspiring future president would restore the economic security of the American middle class in this era of globalization.
Okay, so on Tuesday I went to cast my vote in the Democrats Abroad primary at Portchester Hall in London. The problem was, I was having a massive moral crisis. I was an undecided voter, for the first time in my entire life (and yes, this includes casting a vote for Dukakis in my school’s mock election in 1988 and crying when Bush won).
Since Edwards dropped out (and this Krugman column made me cry), I’ve had a hard time getting excited about the Democratic primary. This isn’t just out of character, it’s out of keeping with the massive turnouts recorded all over the states which (I assume) means that heaps of other people are terribly thrilled. It’s a strange combination of disillusionment, apathy, and indecision that I’ve never experenced before. Between Obamania and the Hillarybot, who the hell am I going to vote for?
I don’t know about you, but I’m having a panic attack about the future of our country. I remember a conversation I had with a friend of mine around the time of the last presidential election. She considered herself a Democrat and I considered myself a Republican.
The real question is…How are we going to make it to November with all of this stress? Well, there is no specific “political” stress relief program. But, here are some general tips you might find helpful., in reducing your level of stress. When all else fails…Turn the “freekin” news OFF.
Under stress? Always. First and foremost, don’t panic! Some people can work under stress because they do not panic. Keep calm and assess the situation. What is the sources of the stress? Is it your boss? Your officemate? The office/school itself? Chill. Hopefully, none of them bite. Here are some ways to control the stress in your life…
I heard recently that there is no such thing as stress. You can’t go outside with an empty jar, fill it with stress then bring it home or with you to wherever you go. Hmmm, sounds good. Then why are we so stressed-out? Why do we do this to ourselves?
Where Do The Candidates Stand on Issues of Science? — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)
It seems to me, the Bush administration has been a serious thorn in the side of science over the last seven years. That’s why it is so important for us to understand where our current presidential candidates stand on issues of science. What would they do about the environment? Stem Cell research? Global Warming? Well, we know a little more after science advisors for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, debated at the Annual Convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Saturday.
Clinton and Obama propose doubling the federal budget for basic scientific research over a period of five years; investing heavily in technology to produce next-generation biofuels; and advancing the fight against global warming.
They also want to remove what they say are the current ideological constraints on science, to return it to its rightful place in government policies.
“Hillary Clinton will end this assault on science,” said Kalil, who served as deputy assistant for technology and economic policy under former president Bill Clinton.
“She knows that innovation is critical for economic growth and high paying jobs,” he added, after outlining Hillary Clinton’s science program on a giant graph.
Ross limited himself to a simple oral presentation that was less structured as he invited members of the audience to visit Obama’s Internet site to get more details about his program.
Barack Obama’s “plan” for science was just posted on his campaign website issues page. The statement is short and generic at best, but he has also posted a three page fact sheet that gives more detail about his overall view. They call the fact sheet a plan on the issues page, but it is really a rather odd combination of statements about his record on the issues and statements about what he supports rather than a real top down plan for science. Overall, the document is very positive for science, but it lacks enough detail for any kind of substantive assessment of what he would do for science as President.
Instead of leading the world in oil imports, we can lead in green technology exports. The country that split the atom can end our dependence on foreign oil and launch an energy revolution. We can call it Energy 2.0 because we’ve got everything it takes except we have not organized ourselves to make it happen.
When science is politicized, when the truth is subjugated by ideology, it’s worse than wrong — it’s dangerous. Ending the war on science and once again valuing the ever-skeptical but always hopeful scientific enterprise is about more than our economy. It’s about more than our security. It is about our democracy.
This just doesn’t seem right to me. There is something seriously wrong when oil and gas corporations continue making record profits, in a time when most Americans are struggling to pay the bills, the dollar is falling, and gas prices are going through the roof.
Exxon Mobil delivered its strongest performance ever last year, earning a record $40.6 billion in net income because of surging oil prices, the company said Friday.
The figure, a 3 percent increase from the previous year, exceeded the company’s own record for profits at an American corporation, set in 2006, and is nearly twice what it earned in 2003. — read full article at The New York Times
If it was up to me (and I know it’s not), I would require these companies to begin to use a large portion of their profits, on finding and producing alternative fuels. It doesn’t even have to be a law, just take away tax incentives and raise taxes on companies that refuse to comply. I know, it’s a free market…bla, bla, bla. I still think there is no reason for giving tax incentives to companies that clearly do not need them.
I usually am not excited about watching these debates (I’m sure I must have mentioned that before), but I had a feeling tonight’s debate was going to be different. And it was. It was respectful, informative, and ultimately historic. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton came off as presidential, and I imagine anyone watching tonight could picture either of these candidates as the next President of the United States.
If you weren’t clear about where these candidates stood on the important issues before tonight, this debate most likely was helpful to you. As the last debate before Super Tuesday (when 24 states will hold primaries or caucuses), this was a “super” way for the voters of those states to get to know both Barack and Hillary.
Here are a few interesting moments of the debate.
After these two opening statements, I knew I was going to enjoy watching this debate. It was obvious these candidates were going to play nice, and I was very happy about that. Obviously, both Obama and Clinton were pandering a bit to the Edwards supports, but you can’t really blame them for that.
Why is the Bush administration trying to tie the economic stimulus package to giving the telecoms immunity and the surveillance program?
This makes no sense at all to me. Actually, it makes total sense, if you are an administration that wants to hold the American people hostage. [Here are some checks for all of you financially struggling people…But, we are only going to give them to you if your representatives sign a bill to let us spy on you.] What the…what??? This is the kind of thing that makes people feel that their government isn’t looking out for them, and their elected officials can’t be trusted. This is the kind of thing that should not happen.
To start with, the candidates didn’t want to do a full two hour debate, so MSNBC agreed to cut it down to an hour and a half. I was tremendously disappointed with this decision. Well, not really (I was actually fighting off a happy dance). Sorry, I guess I kind of have a love/hate relationship with these debates.
Overall, it wasn’t a bad debate. Who won??? Some are saying McCain (I think he falls on the economy, and he outright lied about a statement he made on the economy), some say Huckabee (I did like his explanation of the fair tax), and others are saying Romney (even though they says he’s a flip-flopper, he seems like he has a strong message on the economy). Ron Paul didn’t get a lot of time, but he did make some good points. Interestingly enough, no one seemed to think Giuliani was the winner (I would have to agree). I’m not so sure who the winner was, but I think it could have been Hillary (they actually talked about her tonight more than anything else).
There was obviously a conscious effort not to attack and fight with each other. The Republicans were definitely playing nice tonight, I know that probably disappointed the pundits, but it made me happy.
Here are some other interesting spots to check out…
Here is a quick look at the the Bush stimulus/tax rebate plan, and some reaction to it. Even though this is a breaking news story today, the deal still has to pass the Senate. Personally, I’m a little skeptical.
Is The EPA Really Protecting The Environment? — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)
Why is the EPA so determined to refuse to allow California and 17 other states from setting stronger emission standards? If this wasn’t so pathetic it might actually be funny. Our country has this thing called the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As the name implies, this agency is designed to protect our environment. But oddly enough, the EPA doesn’t seem concerned with the environment so much anymore. In fact, the EPA has evaded disclosure of documents on why California’s emissions laws were struck down.
The refusal to provide a full explanation is the latest twist in a congressional investigation into why the EPA denied California permission to impose what would have been the country’s toughest greenhouse gas standards on cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles.
The EPA is claiming “executive privilege” - I can’t tell you how sick I am of hearing the words “executive privilege” every time an attempt is made to get to the truth about something.
Secrecy, secrecy, and more secrecy - These are the words that are the cornerstones of the Bush administration. Can there be true “democracy” in a government of secrecy? Does “freedom” exist in a country of secrecy? How can there be “unity” in the United States of America, in the face of so much secrecy? One thing is for sure…Global Warming will continue to thrive in this environment of secrecy.
The Care2 community is very concerned with the environment. If you would like to get involved with protecting the environment, here are a few groups you might want to check out…
It seems like it was just yesterday that President Bush was trying to convince us that the American economy was on a “solid foundation” (well, he actually said that about two weeks ago). Finally, the Bush administration is ready to admit there may actually be some cracks in that foundation, and today announced plans for an economic stimulus package.
Now the question is - Will this plan to stimulate the economy actually work? Who will this plan benefit the most? Will it benefit the people struggling the most in our country? My first impression of this plan, is that it will just be a band-aid, and one that will be too small to actually stop the bleeding.
I was disappointed (although not surprised) that President Bush didn’t go into more detail about his plan…It felt a lot like another one of his “just trying to stay relevant” moments. It sounded like he wanted to let congress know that it will be his plan or no plan. Even though he spoke of bi-partisanship, I didn’t get the sense that he actually meant it [I do hope I am wrong about that].
What are some of the candidates saying about the Bush economic stimulus package?
