STOPPING NUKES

From Charles Dixon, Marshall

The Ditto-Heads just keep calling Speak Out, ridiculing Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in large part for his global leadership on nuclear weapons and his ambitious agenda to reduce the nuclear threat. Late last month, he obtained unanimous approval of a U.S. sponsored U.N. Security Council resolution in support of much of that agenda.

These agreements require support from a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, in the Senate. His success or failure largely depends on whether Senator Hutchinson and Senator Cornyn and their colleagues support the sensible policy steps the president has proposed, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and an agreement we are now negotiating with Russia, which would further reduce each country's nuclear arsenals.

The Cold War is over. The world has changed; nuclear weapons are a liability that do not make us safe. They don't deter terrorists or address the real threats we face today. If only one nuclear bomb were to be detonated anywhere in the world, there would be immense human, political, economic, and environmental consequences. There are still some 20,000 nuclear bombs in the world, 95 percent of which are possessed by the United States and Russia. Many are on hair-trigger status, ready for immediate launch.

Please contact Senator Cornyn, and especially Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and ask them to make nuclear agreements a priority. Surely this is something all of us can support.

AMERICAN VALUES

From Rael Nidess, M.D., Marshall

"We are facing a silent tsunami ... " said the head of the U.N.'s World Food Program (WFP) Josette Sheeran in an article published in the Oct. 11th edition of the Guardian. With the global economic crisis, donations to support the fight against starvation around the globe are down 20% and, she states, that even in the best-case the short-fall is $2 billion. The WFP feeds nearly 100 million people a year.

The result could be the "loss of a generation" of children to malnutrition, food riots and political destabilization said Sheeran in an exclusive interview with the Observer. "A humanitarian disaster is unrolling."

The cause of this crisis (or confluence of many crises) are several, " ... a succession of droughts, typhoons, floods and earthquakes ... have destroyed crops in Africa and south-east Asia ... the financial crisis has led to widespread unemployment ... remittances from foreign nationals ... in rich countries to their families at home are 20% lower than last year" and food prices are now higher in 80% of countries than they were a year ago.

It should also be kept in mind that the global economic crisis and the inflation of the commodities markets had their roots in "liberalized" U.S. financial policies

Let's not pretend this crises is a sudden outbreak of "the gimmies" in third-world countries. This is the real deal.

All for lack of 2-3 billion dollars (not all that much in the grand economic scheme of things).

While digesting this, I remembered reading that, despite the U.S. military's insistence that they didn't want or need them, Congress (the Senate in this case) has insisted upon including $2.5 billion for purchase of C-17 transports & $1.8 billion for an unwanted 2nd DDG-51 destroyer while the House insisted on budgeting over half a billion dollars for a 2nd unwanted F-35 Strike Fighter engine built by G.E. & Rolls Royce (it already has all it needs from Pratt & Whitney).

So, Congress, in its wisdom has determined to spend $4.8 billion to buy hardware the military neither wants nor needs.

Let's see ... $2-3 billion to alleviate impending global starvation and help insure a more stable & productive future for the world's children or $4.8 billion for unnecessary military hardware with which to stuff our national codpiece.

How should our national values inform our choice?