The Senate Finance Committee is hauling in representatives of the American Red Cross to grill them about the Katrina response and other matters.

First off, the Red Cross is not a government agency. It's a private 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. While the Finance Committee may have some jurisdiction regarding the organization's tax-exempt status, the reasons Chairman Grassley is holding the hearings have nothing to do with that status.

This is what I perceive to be a further demonization of the private, secular, charitable sector. I've posted about this before. Non-profits are held to higher accountability standards today than either the government or private industry.

What happened to the hearings into why FEMA failed so monumentally in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Grassley has often demonstrated his ability to be a principled - albeit conservative - politician. While I don't think there's anything wrong with investigating claims of wrongdoing, it doesn't seem that a Senate Committee is the body to be doing that.

This is what Grassley is looking for:

The Senate Finance Committee’s review of the Red Cross after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks led to a new policy that allows donors to direct how their money is to be spent.

The items Grassley requested include:

· Copies of all board minutes for the last five years.
· All materials provided to board members during the last five years.
· All communications between board members and the president and CEO for the last five years.
· Copies of Evans’ severance package or proposed severance package.
· Copies of Internal Revenue Service filings.

Grassley also said he wants explanations of complaints about the agency’s poor working relationship with leaders of local charities, as well as detailed information about its spending practices, including spending for tsunami relief and Katrina relief.

Golly Chuck, overreach much?

OK, I can understand the "looking out for the donors" perspective to an extent, but wouldn't looking out for the taxpayer be more in line with the charge of the Senate Finance Committee? Virtually everyone pays taxes by law to keep government running, but far fewer donate to the American Red Cross, and do so by choice when they do. From the Committee's own web page on its jurisdiction (citing Senate Standing Rule XXV):

Committee on Finance, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
1. Bonded debt of the United States, except as provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.
3. Deposit of public moneys.
4. General revenue sharing.
5. Health programs under the Social Security Act and health programs financed by a specific tax or trust fund.
6. National social security.
7. Reciprocal trade agreements.
8. Revenue measures generally, except as provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
9. Revenue measures relating to the insular possessions.
10. Tariffs and import quotas, and matters related thereto.
11. Transportation of dutiable goods.

The page does go on to list federal departments and agencies over which the Committee has some jurisdiction and the IRS is included in the very long list. But I repeat: this committee investigating a private, non-profit entity does not appear to be within its jurisdiction. If Grassley is so concerned, he could instruct the IRS or a federal agency to investigate. If there is corruption at the Red Cross, let the Justice Department investigate. If there's mismanagement but no criminal activity, that's a matter for the organization's Board of Governors.

Why isn't Grassley instead investigating how taxpayer money was spent or misspent by government agencies? What happened to the Republican party that is allegedly the taxpayers' best friend?

Could Grassley's overreaching possibly have anything to do with Grover Norquist, the Godfather (or "field marshal", depending on who you ask) of the current Republican philosophy of "starving government till it can be drowned in a bathtub" whose logical conclusions were so tragically brought to life in late August and early September? Norquist runs a so-called "taxpayer rights" organization named Americans for Tax Reform. Where is he now when taxpayer dollars - far more than private donor dollars - were so horrendously abused?

This hyped-up witch hunt at a private non-profit organization seems little more than a distraction tactic to draw attention away from the drowning of New Orleans and my tax money that was wasted on FEMA in that natural disaster.

If Grassley wants to investigate something, how about private for-profit no-bid contractors losing billions of dollars worth of taxpayer money in supplies and equipment in Iraq?

Since I don't donate to the Red Cross as I do to other charities, but I do pay taxes, that's where I want my Senate Committees focussing their energies and resources.

You Are an Old Soul

You are an experience soul who appreciates tradition. Mellow and wise, you like to be with others but also to be alone. Down to earth, you are sensible and impatient. A creature of habit, it takes you a while to warm up to new people. You hate injustice, and you're very protective of family and friends A bit demanding, you expect proper behavior from others. Extremely independent you don't mind living or being alone. But when you find love, you tend to want marriage right away. Souls you are most compatible with: Warrior Soul and Visionary Soul

28 years ago today.

And I don't feel a day over 25!

(I wear a size small and prefer cashmere, for anyone looking for gift ideas...)

Saddam says he was tortured by Americans.

While the torture of foreign detainees is emphatically wrong and has been documented within the past few years, I tend not to believe this sudden claim by Hussein at the height of his trial.

The man (if you can call him that) committed countless atrocities against his own people. He repeatedly demonstrated over his decades in power that he would stop at nothing to maintain his power.

The man was a tyrant and a dictator who became adept at manipulating the system for his own personal gain. I fear this may be his latest ploy that will have the unfortunate effect of further tarnishing the image of the United States and our troops abroad.

While I did not support the hypocritical invasion, what's done is done and Hussein is now standing trial for his crimes against humanity, which is a good thing. Now if only Congress and the President had the fortitude to oust every meglomaniacal dictator in the world and hold them accountable for their evil...but we only do that with dictators with whom our elites have personal or familial beefs.

Let's investigate these claims, but also take them from their source.

Cheney rushed home from a "diplomatic foreign mission" to cast the deciding vote in the Senate on the budget.

We were damned if he did and damned if he didn't on this one.

He could have continued his foreign travels, further eviscerating our reputation in the world, but instead opted to come home and eviscerate our social safety net.

What I'm not yet seeing in the maelstrom around the warrantless spying debate is the implication that this is a very slippery slope.

If this spying on citizens with no Congressional or judicial oversight is allowed to stand, what's next? What will the next civil liberty to be eroded? If the Fourth Amendment can be so easily circumvented, how long before the same is done to the First Amendment? Or the Fifth? Or pick your favorite piece of Constitutional law...

I know this isn't the first step in the steady erosion of our civil liberties, but it's the most reported on and flagrant flouting of the bedrock of our republic to date. This is the one that is catching on and raising ire. And it's a perfect example of the slippery slope - it's all downhill from here if something isn't done swiftly and definitively.

That's the argument that is more likely to sway average Americans, more than simply stating the truth that the President broke the law.

Referring to my earlier post and the whole warrantless domestic spying issue, I have a question.

Suppose that this spying DID lead to the arrest of a terrorism suspect. Couldn't the suspect or his or her attorneys just argue that the evidence was obtained improperly and illegally? Would such a suspect even be indicted, much less convicted?

Clearly there's not a lot of concern on the part of the current administration for due process for terrorism suspects. And it's likely any evidence would be presented to a secret court anyway, which has less to worry about public scrutiny or oversight.

I do think it's an interesting question. What's the point of abrogating the law if it makes any evidence inadmissable anyway? Seems like they're just cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Watching the President's press conference. He just invoked Article II of the Constitution to explain his authority to spy domestically without warrants. That argument struck me as not really making much sense, so I grabbed my handy copy of the Constitution that I carry with me everywhere to see if I could find the part of the Constitution to which the President referred.

Article II is about the executive branch. Section 1 is all about the Electoral College. Nothing substantial in there about the responsibilities of the President, just how he or she is elected. Section 1 does include the President's oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President swore an oath (with one hand on the bible, no less!) to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. You know what the Constitution also says? You can't perform searches or seizures without probable cause and due process. Even if Congress did "give" the President authority to conduct domestic spying in the authorization for the Afghanistan war (as AG Gonzalez mind-bogglingly tried to claim to Katie Couric this morning), it would still be un-Constitutional. That's how the system works - the Constitution trumps all other laws of the land. That's why it's so difficult to amend.

But back to Article II. Section 2 is about the President's role. Surely there is something in this section that talks about domestic spying or executive authority, right? Commander in Chief. OK. Power to grant pardons and reprieves, except in impeachments. Great. With advice and consent of the Senate, make appointments and enter into treaties. Sounds reasonable. Recess appointments. Hasn't served us well lately, but I can see the foresight.

Section 3. State of the Union. Calling either house of Congress into session or adjourn either. Receive ambassadors and ministers. Also this:

...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...

Hasn't been doing such a great job with that so far...

Section 4. Impeachment. Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

And incidentally, here's what the fourth amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Back to the presser, I just listened to the President of the United States lie about pre-war intelligence and who saw what when. It has been well-established that Congressional leaders did not receive the same intelligence estimates, the ones expressing doubts about WMD, that the administration received. I'm done with this. Time to go to work.

I wanted to write about this on Wednesday, but I had a lot of other breaking news to deal with that day and tried to catch up with the rest of work throughout the rest of the week.

Anyway, on Wednesday TUSD governing board member Alex Rodriguez announced his intentions to run for the seat in Congress being vacated by Jim Kolbe at the end of this term.

Here's what he had to say as he made his announcement:

"At a time when our country is fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, waging a global war on terror, and shoring up our homeland security, I am concerned that no candidate with both military and security policy experience in international security affairs has entered the race in the 8th Congressional District," Rodriguez said. "This is not a time for on-the-job training."

Much has already been written about how deeply Rodriguez shoved his foot down his throat by failing to know even the most basic landscape of the race. Really, it didn't take me much effort to find out who was planning to run months ago, before anybody had filed with the FEC or the press started paying attention and even before Kolbe made his retirement announcement. Seriously, it's really easy. Alex? Meet Google.

I was already pretty unimpressed with Rodriguez when he ran for his seat on the TUSD board a year ago. Several non-profits got together and held a candidate forum for any person running for a local, state or federal office. It was not a forum BY candidates, but a forum at which those of us who work on women's issues could present our issues TO the candidates.

Needless to say, Rodriguez was one of the candidates who came to our forum. That in itself was a good thing. But when he came up to me after the forum and opened his mouth, most of my impression was badly tarnished.

First, he kept repeating my name. I find that incredibly annoying, especially when done by someone who just met me. Second, he just repeated the talking points on his brochure and didn't talk at all about any of the five or six speakers who just presented a wide range of issues to him. It's like he took a crash course in campaigning and forgot to be authentic or even appear interested in what the voters were saying.

Just repeating someone's name and blindly reciting bullet points does not signal to the person with whom you're chatting that you care about them. It just signals that you're a mindless automoton.

I didn't vote for Alex Rodriguez when he ran for the TUSD board and I won't vote for him - in the primary or the general - when he runs for Congress.

I'd prefer to have someone with some level of intelligence and empathy representing me in Congress and I'll finally get that chance in 2006.

For me right now, the real viable race is between Gabrielle Giffords and Jeff Latas, though I give credit to all who throw their hats into the ring.

I'm pleased to finally be able to publically announce that this year's production of Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues" as part of V-Day Tucson 2006 will be held at the historic Fox Tucson Theatre in the First Magnus Auditorium on February 4, 2006.

Mark your calendars now! Seven of Tucson's most talented actresses will perform this incredible play to raise money for local organizations working to end violence against women and girls.

This is the first live theatre performance in the Fox since its multi-year, multi-million dollar renovation and the first live production in more than 31 years!

Tickets will go on sale next week at local retailers and will also be available at the Fox Tucson Theatre and online via Ticket Master.

It's going to be an incredible event, not to be missed.

So I've written below about Debra Lafave, the former Florida teacher who raped one of her students and got a plea deal by arguing she's "too pretty" to go to prison. The plea deal was rejected by a judge last week.

Now in Georgia, there's another woman who got pregnant by a 15-year-old friend of her son. She married the father, even though she "prefers older men."

Here's what the woman, Lisa Clark, had to say:

“They’re making a big deal out of a 15-year-old,” she told WAGA-TV in Atlanta. “And I can assure you that he was no victim.

“It’s not like they are making it out to be. Actually, I’d told him ’no’ several times because I prefer someone older, but he was just so nice and so sweet,” she said.

This aw-shucks mentality is just sickening. Uh, honey, you've got a good 22 years on your young groom. It's not like you couldn't be the adult and tell him no once and for all. I don't care how "worldly" you think a 15-year-old is, there's still a gigantic power dynamic there that you can't just excuse by saying how nice and sweet the kid was.

Clark should go to prison right alongside Lafave. They could be cellmates (you know, except for that whole different states thing). Regardless, they should both be locked up for a very long time. We can not afford to excuse this kind of abuse.

There are eight confirmed Democrats vying for the state Senate seat just vacated by Gabrielle Giffords.

They are (in the order in which they were listed in the star):

David Bradley
Ted Downing
Leslie Nixon
Steve Farley
Ted Prezelski
Paul Lindsey
Charlie Morriss
Tim Sultan

The district committee members met last night meet tonight to narrow that list down to three. As of 8 AM, the Star still hadn't named the final three that will be submitted to the County Board of Supervisors, who then choose the heir apparent.

I'll reserve comment for now until the final three names are released.

(Update: I read the Star article last night online, but it apparently referred to the Pima County Dems meeting on 12/13, not the night the story was posted)

It's nearly my bedtime, so I won't be writing in depth about this tonight. But Senator Jon Kyl sat down with the Arizona Daily Star to discuss immigration "reform" and Iraq.

This guy is a xenophobic lunatic who cares more about politics than people.

Dr. Mark Osterloh, who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for Governor against Janet in 2002, proposed a million dollar lottery in 2003 as a way to encourage voter turnout. It seems he's still pushing that idea:

(Tucson, AZ) -- One man wants to make one eligible voter a millionaire simply by doing his civic duty. Dr. Mark Osterloh wants the state to give one voter one-million for casting a ballot. Osterloh is the man whose initiatives have expanded health care for the poor and established public funding for campaigns and created a citizens' committee to draw legislative district boundaries. Osterloh wants the initiative to make the 2006 ballot. According to Osterloh, only about half of eligible voters register and only about half of registered voters vote. Osterloh wants to get people out to the polls and he says the money would come from uncollected state lottery winnings and the people who run Arizona's lottery would run this, too. But the initiative already has some skeptics. Judy White, chairwoman of the Pima County Republican Party, says she doesn't think this is a very good way of getting people to the polls because it will bring people who are uneducated about the issues or candidates.

I think the idea has merit. Voter turnout is typically dismal, the economy is poor and disenfranchisement is high. Why not offer a chance to win a cash incentive? Those of us who already vote in every single election could use the boost and a cash prize like that might motivate some of our apathetic neighbors.

White's argument is typical Republican straw-man. What makes her think current voters are by and large educated about the issues or candidates? Her party wins predominantly by misleading voters about candidates and issues. Representative democracy hinges on the enfranchised participation of all eligible voters, whether they fully understand all the nuances of public policy or not.

I would argue that the possibility of a million big ones would motivate most people to do a little research before heading to the polls. Of course there will always be uninformed voters, just as there already are now.

Shame on Judy White for discouraging full and complete voter participation in the process. It makes one wonder if she might fear higher voter turnout because that historically works in the Democrats' favor?

I posted a few weeks ago about Jennifer Lafave, the Florida teacher who raped one of her 14-year-old students but got herself a plea agreement using the defense that she's too pretty to go to prison.

Needless to say, that plea deal was a load of bull. The prosecutors in that case should have been ashamed.

Fortunately, one of the judges in the case agreed. The plea deal's been tossed and Lafave will rightfully face trial. She deserves to spend a long time in prison for her blatant abuse of power and the long-term negative repurcussions that will follow her former student for many years.

It's not over yet. The judge set a new trial date for April, but the prosecutors and defense are working on another deal. Is this just wreckless incompetence on the part of the Florida State Attorney's Office, or do Floridians just not care about child rape when the child is a boy?

This graf is telling:

Defense attorney John Fitzgibbons said the judge indicated he wanted to hear expert information about a trial’s potential impact on the two boys.

It's reassuring that the judge is going down this path, but it opens the floodgates for the defense to play the same victim-blaming, obfuscating games that defense attorneys always play.

I sure hope there are some competent rape crisis centers in Florida who can accurately and compellingly and unwaveringly testify to the judge's query. The prosecuting agencies there have so far proven ineffective at advocating for rape victims who are adolescent boys.

65% of Spokane, WA voters have decided to oust Mayor Jim West following an internet sex scandal in which he used an online gay chatroom to lure young men for sex in exchange for city jobs and other perks of being the mayor's boytoy.

There's a lot I could say about this. But suffice it to say, not even Kolbe is stupid enough to use government property to find his "houseboys."

I was on the phone with my dad today and he told me that there is a group of Evangelical Christians in their community who want to hold church services in the community clubhouse.

A little background: my parents semi-retired to Chandler, a southern suburb of Phoenix, about two years ago. After 60 or so years of harsh New Jersey winters and working themselves ragged, they've earned some time off in a warmer clime. They moved into one of those cookie-cutter "older adult" communities that I loathe for their lack of character and iron gates. But my parents are happy there and have made many new friends, so I try my damndest to keep my fat mouth shut.

Anyway, my dad was telling me that at first the church group was trying to stick it in under the radar, but all hell broke loose (no pun intended) once word got out. Their community, like most retirement communities in the valley, has a healthy mix of Christians and Jews. The Jews naturally raised a stink. It's a community center, for every member of the community. Hanging a big ole crucifix on the wall would make it very uncomfortable for a sizeable segment of the community.

What surprised my dad was the fact that quite a few gentiles are also opposed to the idea of having a church inside those hallowed gates. Mostly Catholics, as my dad kept pointing out, were objecting to having any kind of organized religious congregation within the community. The Catholics and the Jews seem to be in agreement that the organized religion is just peachy in a church outside the community, but it doesn't belong in a multi-purpose clubhouse. There was also justifiable concern about the impact that would have on property values.

My dad thinks that they've averted disaster for now. At one point he said to me, "I mean whatever happened to the separation of church and state?" I patiently explained to him that his retirement community is not a state or state agency and that this is not a Constitutional issue. It's more of a small-c constitutional issue and what the community can stomach.

As with anything else when it comes to Evangelicals, it's a matter of respect and their utter lack of ability to show any to people who don't believe as they do. Even when they profess respect of differences, it's in such a condescending, passive-aggressive way that I'd rather they just keep their haughty judgements to themselves.

I should note that there are plenty of affinity groups in this community, including some bible study groups, that meet privately in people's homes. Neither my parents, nor I, nor their Jewish and Catholic neighbors have any problem with this whatsoever. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business, provided of course that you're not hurting anyone else. It's just when you bring aggressive religiosity into the public sphere, especially a public sphere that is intended to be safe and shared by people of diverse beliefs, that this becomes a problem.

So kudos, mom and dad, for leading the charge against these zealots who won't be happy until they control every aspect of our lives, public AND private.

Apparently, if I was a sci-fi character, I'd be Captain Kirk. Yeah, 'cause I've always felt such an affinity with Shatner.

James T. Kirk:

God, I'm a dork.

When did it become wrong to respect the fact that we are a diverse nation with many, many religions, traditions and beliefs?

Why do religious conservatives have a persistent victim complex when they wield unprecedented power in virtually every facet of life?

What harm is done by respecting the fact that I and millions of other citizens don't celebrate Christmas, never have and never will?

My family is Jewish, though that is more of a cultural identity for me now. I am *gasp* an atheist. My birthday also happens to be December 24 (I'm a size small and prefer anything cashmere, FYI). So I have a little experience in feeling marginalized by Christmas.

I remember as a lad in growing up in my small suburbab/rural town in New Jersey how every December the postmaster would put up a giant "Merry Christmas" sign in front of the town post office and how every December my parents would go and complain to the postmaster, the mayor, the council. It wasn't until that postmaster retired and a new one was brough in that the sign was changed to say "Happy Holidays."

It's not a matter of trying to remove Christ from Christmas. It's about trying to broaden the scope of American values and learn from each other about what makes this country and her people so great. We are stronger when we can live with and respect each others' differences than when we try to make everyone conform.

My mom used to go into my siblings' and my elementary school classrooms every year and read the book "A Hannukah Fable for Christmas" to our classmates. It was one of her many small ways of giving back to the community by preparing our peers for a world outside hicksville where not everyone is homogenous and where you have to get along with lots of people who aren't like you or believe in the same things as you.

There is no war on Christmas. It's patently absurd to suggest there is. There is also no war on Christianity. There is a desire to be respected and included though. But the religious right can't abide that. Oh no. All non-believers are going to hell, whether we believe in hell or not.

Bill O'Reilly and his not-all-there cronies at Focus on the Family just don't care about anyone but themselves. That's what this whine-fest about. Do they really believe that all the world's problems would just melt away if every last one of us praised Jesus once a week in church? I mean, are they really that naive? Are they really that sheltered?

I'm holding back my anger A LOT in this post. When, for example, the chairman of the American Family Association says things like

"Tough luck...This is an overwhelmingly Christian country."

to Jews, Muslims, atheists and others who object the ubiquity of Christmas, it tends to piss me off. I suppose that may be part of their strategy, but it's still just divisive, rude and unnecessary. It also misleadingly leads one to believe that most or even many Christians feel threatened by the words "happy holidays." Most of the Christians I know, even the religious ones, aren't bothered at all by seeing "Happy Holidays" on store signs instead of "Merry Christmas." They tend to have more important (or at least more interesting) things to busy themselves with.

And I'm not unreasonable about this. I do think it's silly for Lowe's to sell "holiday trees" instead of "Christmas trees." Non-Christians don't celebrate Christmas and so the vast majority don't see a need to buy plastic evergreens this time of year (or chop down real ones). Many of us find the tradition a little silly, but can respect it for what it is and for what it means to those who are different from us.

And it's not like Christmas is the only holiday that gets celebrated this time of year. Chanukah is actually a very minor Jewish holiday that celebrates a military victory, but it receives tremendous attention simply by virtue of its proximity to Christmas. There's the winter solstice for the pagans. There's Eid for our Muslim countrymen and women. There's Kwanzaa in the African American community. And there are a whole bunch more that I'm leaving out or forgetting (or mangling the spelling of).

The bottom line is that self-absorbed Christian right actually believes the preposterous and offensive bill of goods they've been trying to sell that the United States is a Christian nation AND they're so self-centered that they hate to recognize anyone who worships or has faith in a different way.

There is likely one other point in that bottom line, which is the bottom line itself. Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State, sums it up best:

"Jerry Falwell has found that this war on Christmas is a very good, healthy, fundraising mechanism...And that's just about all this is. This is a war without any generals."

Amen, brother Barry, amen.

What a strange day in Arizona politics. State Senator Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, resigns her seat to run for her party's nomination for an open U.S. House of Representatives seat on the same day that looney tune Len Munsil resigns as president of the dishonestly named Center for Arizona Policy to run for the Republican nomination for governor. I don't know what to make of this kind of coincidence between two such polar opposites.

(Note to Arizona Daily Star: Please don't refer to Munsil as a "conservative activist." There's no such thing. They are just people who desperately want to maintain the status quo or hurl us back to some fictionalized golden age of yesteryear.)

I do want to say that I'm happy Senator Giffords is in the race. While I've been praising Jeff Latas a lot recently, I think the party and the voters are best served by having an honest and open debate about what the future holds for CD8 and their visions for it. I don't think it's a prerequisite to have held elective office to be a damn good member of Congress, nor do I think a candidate needs a career of military service to appeal to a majority of voters in this district. I would very much like this campaign to not hinge on name recognition or for any candidate to be dismissed simply because they haven't raised much money yet. It's still early. Now of course the trick is to run campaigns that don't bruise each other too badly while making the case for themselves.

As for Munsil, he's a mean-spirited, hateful little gnome and Arizona voters who aren't the Republican base will see him for what he is next November. Seriously, the guy is nuts. Besides being good news for the Governor, this is good news for Arizona Together, the statewide coalition that is working to defeat CAP's decidedly anti-family marriage amendment. Munsil was the only visible crusader in favor of the ambiguously-worded proposition. With his time now dedicated to trying to out-wacko the other wackos, the prospects of defeating the amendment just got a lot brighter.

I'm fascinated how the calculus of state politics has been changing almost daily. This will be a great, spirited campaign season.

I just scrolled down through this page and noticed that people had posted comments to some of my posts about the upcoming CD8 horserace.

Thank you to those who read what I have to say and took the time to create thoughtful, articulate responses. I've tried to return the favor in those comment threads.

Please do come back often and comment as the mood strikes you. This is exactly the kind of dialogue I hoped would spring from my musings.

I started writing a long post last night about the so-called "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" and my righteous indignation that it did not include performance measures when every non-profit human service organization must create and closely monitor quanitative and qualitative measures if they want to receive taxpayer money.

Then I read a little further down. Apparently there are metrics that they now say they are using to measure progress. OK, that's great. I can admit when I've made a mistake and indeed did not post last night when I read that part.

But if the social safety net stateside has to comply with meticulous evaluation requirements, so should a military operation that is sucking up resources that could otherwise be going to those organizations creating the social safety net.

I've been working in the non-profit sector my entire adult professional life and I've been managing a national federal grant for the past three years. I'm fortunate to have a buffer between me and the Department of Justice for the grant I manage, but there is still a great deal of bureacracy involved.

Truth be told, I hate the evaluation and reporting process, but I understand why it's necessary. We have to provide very specific benchmarks - not just how we'll measure our successes or failures, but the exact numbers that demonstrate that. When we're talking about things like serving rape survivors, those benchmarks seem increasingly arbitrary. How do you measure someone's pain? But they do help us get a handle on what we want to be doing, our goals, and how we're succeeding in getting there.

So while I was mildly pleased to see that there are some "metrics" in the laughable propoganda piece known as the "National Strategy," I am rather pissed that it does not tell us what those metrics are in specific numbers. And how does Donald Rumsfeld plan to measure the more ambiguous things, like Iraqi attitudes? When I have to measure things like that for work, I can give pre- and post-tests before and after presentations, or conduct focus groups or individual interviews. Somehow I doubt the DoD is doing those things to assess progress. I think we can all imagine what an "individual interview" would look like at the hands of a military interrogator...

Having a thorough, step-by-step plan with specific benchmarks is imperative to the success of any project. In the non-profit world, you have to have that plan clearly and concisely written before you receive a cent from the government. So why wasn't there a plan like that before we invaded? And why now, 1000 days later, do we still not have a proposal that would pass muster in a domestic grant review?

Honestly, this "National Strategy" would be laughed out of any federal grant review process. It would be funny if it weren't so deadly serious. Programs that save lives stateside are being suffocated but still have to account for every dollar of taxpayer money they spend while the already bloated military (and military contractors) budget continues to expand with much less to worry about in terms of accountability.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be spending money to help people abroad. While there are huge unmet needs here at home, the United States does have another moral obligation to help those less fortunate all over the world. It's just difficult for us to meet all our responsbilities both here and abroad when this administration is being so reckless with cutting taxes for the wealthy when we're at war, running up the federal deficit and spending taxpayer money on the war with no clear way of demonstrating that the money is being spent efficiently or effectively. That goes double for the corrupt military contractors and other war profiteers.

I should also note that the stringent evaluation requirements for non-profits receiving federal money are actually mandated by federal law. Why isn't the military (or military contractors) held to the same standard?

This pisses me off. It's not only a disturbing misprioritization of my hard-earned tax dollars, it's a criminal misuse of public money and public trust.