Apparently, making a statement as overt as the above is too political for today's movie-making climate. And the UN is just a place for terrorists to place bombs. It's truly fascinating to me that more people are willing to watch, in slow motion, excruciatingly boring detail, the tour of a bomb squad than are willing to understand the nuance of diplomacy and cross-cultural communication.

At this point, I don't care what you think about the Iraq War. I think it's a travesty that instead of trying to better understand Iraqis, today's war movies can only accomplish one thing: increase our empathy for American soldiers.

Compare The Hurt Locker to Three Kings: in this year's biggest Oscar bait flick, the most extensive Iraqi part goes to a kid hocking pirated DVDs. On the other hand, the fictitious depiction of the first Iraq War provided a look at both the terror inflicted by Saddam's regime and the cruelty of the "American liberators" (in that they abandoned their Iraqi cohorts rather than working to overthrow Hussein).

Oh - but there, I've done it. I must be a crazy left-wing nut to want my war movies to have a point, a plot, and a reason to care about the characters.

This post is not about how I think the US should have handled its relationship with the country of Iraq. This is about the depiction of war in the US: the rejection of nuance; the refusal to portray any non-Western character as more than 2-dimensional, and the ridiculous Scarlet A attached to any film that dares to make you think about the consequences of war.

I just don't know why I'm so surprised.

I didn't try--at any point--to express my opinion on retail fundraising. First of all, where exactly is this 10% going? (They never did give me a nonprofit name for their contribution.) Second, if I really cared about giving money to Haiti wouldn't it be more effective for me to give the money directly to a nonprofit? I rarely contribute to anything besides WILPF, but when the earthquake hit, I did donate to Partners In Health. But I don't make spa appointments based on my desire to help out the world. Mostly, I make them for personal reasons: like every muscle in my body being tight and the pain in my back and forearms being overwhelming.

The commodification of nonprofits demoralizes me. The insistence that for-profit models ("social entrepreneurship") is how we should all move forward towards a better world. And the way businesses use cause marketing to enhance their brand cache (and bring customers in on a slow Super Bowl Sunday) is just ridiculous.

But these are my problems with the system in general. I don't hold it against my local spa that they chose to jump on the bandwagon. Mostly, I've been plagued by the questions that family members raised: how can we be sure the money doesn't line the pockets of corrupt politicians (or greedy NGOs)? The answer to that is simple - give to Partners In Health. But to the larger question - how has Haiti persistently stayed the poorest country in the hemisphere? To that, I don't have the clearest answer.

I know some things in general terms: US governments backed coups. US corporations supported corrupt governments that suppressed the people of Haiti. US agriculture dumped food stuffs on Haiti that US consumers don't want to eat (all those chicken breasts we clamor for? They're attached to animals full of the other, other white meat. As in dark meat. As in the food we dump on developing countries at prices far lower than it would take to raise a chicken and slaughter it in the country.) While based on the experience of Jamaica, the documentary film Life and Debt can give insight into these issues.

But ultimately, and this I should have realized before reading an op-ed in the NYT, it comes down to a simple equation: US drug addicts fuel violence, instability, and class chasms throughout Latin America. I think it's a bit of a stretch to link a crack pipe in NYC to a terrorist cell in Yemen. But it's a much easier link between that crack pipe and the social/economic/political problems of Haiti and many other Latin American countries.

Ben Fountain details the connection in his brilliant op-ed, "Addicted to Haiti." If we want to give Haiti a fighting chance of recovering, instead of trying to adopt its orphaned citizens, we should start caring for the US'ians who are addicted to cocaine. We should start treating US addiction as the public health crisis it is, rather than continuing this nonsense about wars and czars. Black and white, law-based reaction to addiction has failed. Not just for Haiti. But for the survivors of never-ceasing blood baths in Juarez, Mexico. And the survivors of the never-ending civil war in Colombia. And every family who has struggled to put the pieces back together after a loved one diminishes his brain capacity by filling it with toxic substances. And for the addicts who struggle to stay sober; and the ones who don't make it.

Let's stop texting the Red Cross. Trust me, they'll keep going without you. Let's get real about regional development and start working to decrease demand, increase the availability of rehabilitation, de-criminalize addiction, increase social and economic opportunities so fewer kids seek out gangs for community identification / monetary gain. What do you say? What do we have to lose?

It's good to know that there are now 25 female ambassadors posted in DC (out of 182 accredited ambassadors, they represent 13.7% of all ambassadors to the US). The rise has been credited to the string of female US Secretaries of State (Albright, Rice, Clinton).

Some female ambassadors refuse to acknowledge that they might bring a different perspective to the art of diplomacy. Carolina Barco from Colombia simply wants to push free trade, though she admits being female gets her noticed. Former SecState Albright rejects the notion of women focusing on "soft issues," stating: ""They are often the hardest issues: poverty, discrimination, education and health."

I was happy to learn that Bahrain's ambassador since 2008 is Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, the first Jewish ambassador from an Arab state.

Nevertheless, I was deeply troubled by the question posed by Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association:

Johnson said the rise in female diplomats coincides with what she sees as a shift in investment away from diplomacy and toward defense. "Is the relative feminization of diplomacy indicative of its decline as a center of power and influence?" she wonders.

I too welcome increases in the number of women engaged in diplomacy. But we should always remember that it's not enough for us to have more seats at the table. As global citizens, we must demand that conflict resolution begin and end with nonviolent negotiations. We must explain to our fellow citizens and elected leaders that the vast majority of money spent on the military is wasted, leading to less human security, not more. And we must promote democratic institutions: from the town hall meetings to the US Congress to the United Nations as the proper arenas for conflict resolution.

Below is a short video in honor of Susi's departure. It was compiled by our UN Office Director Anjie Rosga. We had hoped to surprise Susi by showing it at the IB meeting, but technical difficulties made that impossible. I can't bring myself to repeat the title Anjie gave the piece, because I refuse to believe this is an end; rather, another door has opened.

Farewell Susi! from WILPF-UNO on Vimeo.

I'm a member of the Democratic Party, but the last time I actively participated in the party, beyond voting, was 1988. It was weird to see what a local political party is like in person. The president, Cara Robin, got up and thanked everyone for coming "on behalf of the West LA Democratic Party and our co-sponsors." That's the extent to which co-sponsoring organizations were mentioned. So much for movement building. She then made cursory statement about the need for us to re-elect Barbara Boxer, support Marcy Winograd's bid for Congress, and help get California Majority Rule on the ballot.

Then she sorta introduced the first speaker, Georg-Andreas (Andrew) Pogany, from Give an Hour. He apologized for needing to read his speech from his computer. He lost his original speech, and due to a brain injury that occurred as a result of the war, he has difficulty memorizing things.

After Pogany spoke, Ms. Robin introduced the rest of the panel.

Robert Sheer is a nationally syndicated columnist, co-host of Left, Right, and Center, Editor-in-Chief of Truth Dig, and author of Pornography of Power.

Scott Ritter is the author of Target Iran, Waging Peace, and Iraq Confidential. He is a former senior weapons inspector in Iraq.

Peter Richardsom teaches California Culture at San Francisco State University and recently published a book on Ramparts Magazine, A Bomb in Every Issue.

Mr.Sheer spoke next in a dis-jointed manner that was difficult to follow for people not intimately knowledgeable about his career. Mr. Richardson spoke next and didn't give a complete explanation of Ramparts magazine, since 30% of the audience raised their hands to say they knew what it was. (His short definition: it brought muckraking journalism back to the mainstream. Shortly after it won the prestigious Polk Award, CBS premiered 60 Minutes and the Pentagon Papers were published by the Washington Post.)

After hearing an explanation of why Martin Luther King, Jr came out against the Vietnam war that started with Sheer telling the end of the story and Richardson telling the beginning and middle, I started wondering if I was really at a panel about the experiences of veterans in war or if I was at another panel on the history of the peace & justice movement.

I don't mean to disparage the speakers. Pogany, Sheer, and Richardson had important messages to give. They just weren't all talking about veterans. And ultimately, I was more inspired by Ritter's speech than those of his fellow panelists.

Eventually, Mr. Ritter spoke. His insightful, biting commentary was just what you'd expect from a former military man: sprinkled with profanity, cutting to the heart of the manner with no b.s. I found it interesting that several audience members were offended by the way he spoke, telling him afterward that he didn't make a solid case. Here's the abbreviated version of what he said:

We're here because of veterans. No matter what they look like physically, military will never be the same when they come back from war. The process of preparing our youth for war, changes a person forever.

When you are born into this world, you are not programmed to do what the military programs you to do. We can throw whatever rhetoric we want out there: An Army of One. Navy: A Global Force for Good. The truth is join the military and learn to take human life. You're either directly taking it or supporting people taking life. The military exists for one reason only: to kill human beings. We're taking human beings and de-humanizing them.

Audience member asked a question, stating that "cleaning up the mess we began" is a strong argument for keeping the US military in Afghanistan. How do you propose we clean up the mess in a different way?

First of all, it is the quintessential American issue. We live by the Pottery Barn rule: you break it, you own it. It really does work, sort of. What happens when you insert the elephant into the china shop? Shit, buy new china. The ultimate way to resolve it is get the elephant out of the china shop. Afghanistan is a horrifically complicated place. Is Holbrooke going to speak any of the native languages of Afghanistan? If we're going to take a 20 year old kid from Poughkeepsie, NY or Santa Cruz, CA then we should give him the 11 years of education to understand the language and culture at a pH.D level before going there. Otherwise, we shouldn't send him there. We don't have the tool set to fix it. The people best equipped to fix Afghanistan are the Afghan people themselves.

It's time to get the bull out of the china stop. US citizens need to stop seeing the US as the global policeman. We need to embrace internationalism and work through the United Nations to help people create politically viable nation states. We need to begin diplomacy with human beings, not machine guns.

It's not enough to read books and listen to Democracy Now! We must be engaged citizens. We must hold politicians accountable: not just by voting, but by working together to create a critical mass of political will for peace and justice. Join the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and help create the change so desperately needed.

It's time to expose the fallacy of the paradigms espoused by the meritocracy and political elite. It's time to assert that another way is possible. WILPF is the way global citizens of all genders can create non-violent social upheaval.

And yes, we need to support veterans. We need to support veterans of both genders, recognizing not just PTSD, but also the horrific levels of rape faced by our female soldiers. I do not believe in war. I do not believe there is a conflict best solved by violence. But I do believe that veterans deserve mental and physical health services and they deserve re-training. Not another 2 for 1 pizza coupon or vehicle discount, but real health services for them and their families.

Tuesday night was a turning point in the Obama presidency. All weekend, details of his "plan" leaked out in the political media. So I had plenty of advanced warning that like many foolish presidents before him, Obama thinks he can save the world by occupying it with the US military. So many people are so hopeful for the leadership he supposedly offers. Sure, he's said some pretty rhetoric about nuclear disarmament. But what does any of that talk - or his Nobel Peace Prize mean when the man does not recognize that Human Beings Live in Afghanistan. He talked about the Taliban and al Qaeda, but never about poverty or corruption, war lords or illegitimate presidents. And then he had the gall to end his speech hoping that we all join in unity, like we did after 9-11.

Let's be clear about something: if you have to rely on pandering to the fears created by the horrific terrorist attack on US soil in 2001 to unify your audience, then you've failed to make a persuasive argument.

Yet, he did. And there are so many people who think he's right. I'll admit something: eight years ago, I thought the US military would be useful to bring women out of the shadows of Afghanistan and create space for all people of the country to create a real nation. How foolish I was. And how foolish the US political elite continues to be.

Obama's Afghanistan strategy relies on everything that is wrong with international relations. IR focuses on Power: you must be a war lord, terrorist, state leader, or corporation to be meaningful in a discussion based on "realist" theory. The men who created this paradigm thought so highly of their beliefs that anyone daring to oppose them were derided as "idealists."

I'm tired of these standards of discourse. Poverty, political corruption, and social instability have never been resolved by military occupation. Flooding Afghanistan with English speaking US soldiers and US-paid mercenaries serves one purpose: it props up the corrupt, illegitimate Karzai government and gives carte blanche to warlords wielding power in the name of fighting terror.

I accepted the reality of international relations seven years ago, when I made the decision to stop pursuing a career in the foreign service. The paradigm shifts needed to create real human security are so massive: non-violent social upheaval is simply the only way to make it happen. And I can't help move the world towards needed paradigm shifts from a job serving the US Empire.

Tuesday's speech depressed me. It's depressing not just because the most recent Nobel Peace Prize winner fundamentally does not understand how to create global peace. It's depressing because to explain the faults in his reasoning requires a level of sophistication in political discourse that simply does not exist in the US mainstream media. The only place I've heard a bit of common sense on the topic was Josef Joffe, a German publisher/editor on "To The Point" explaining that Europeans, after experiencing two horrific wars on their soil in the 20th century, think diplomacy is the best way to solve international disputes and create nation states.

Remember, Europeans did not find these beliefs by sitting in ivory towers, thinking up ways to rule the world. The true horror of war, the disgusting indiscriminate nature of aerial bombings and painfully slow path to reconstruction taught them the simple truth: War Is Never The Answer. Period. Full Stop.

You may call me an idealist, but I believe I am the true realist. I have seen the core of human nature, I have seen the destruction of war and I say firmly: the US military is not a liberating force. The US fails to live up to UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which mandates women's equal participation in conflict resolution. Fighting terrorists through mercenaries, the US military, and corrupt warlords does not create human security for US citizens or Afghans.

The US Government has chosen the path to further destabilization of Afghanistan.

At this crucial moment in world history, will you silently ascent to the senseless deaths of more US soldiers and Afghans? Or will you take a stand for real justice?

Things to do:

1. Sign the Code Pink petition against Endless Occupation.
   
2. Join Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. We work tirelessly to challenge and change the root causes of war and injustice at the local, national, and international level.
   
3. Explain your opposition to the hopeless military escalation to your friends, family, and co-workers.
   
4. Chastise mainstream media for excluding articulate anti-war voices from their political talk shows. Ask how balanced a panel is when no one on it rejects the paradigm of IR realism.
   
5. Find a way to create peace in your own life so that your anger doesn't consume you: depression, though a logical response to this endless war, only poisons you.

Globally, militarism, patriarchy, and free-trade capitalism are fundamental pillars of human interaction. I believe social upheaval is needed to create a society where the economy is based on human needs, where all people participate equally in the political process, and the use of physical force is severely limited, replaced by diplomacy.

Civil society is the key ingredient to accomplishing these goals. The institutions of civil society, such as Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, provide individuals with a way to participate in the political process with as much legitimacy and weight as any political party or corporation.

While I believe helping individuals and communities succeed within the current global paradigm through development activities is important, development work does not create new systems of social and political equality.

From WILPF's Constitution:

WILPF makes it its duty to further by non-violent means the social transformation that enables the inauguration of systems under which social and political equality and economic justice for all can be attained, without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other grounds whatsoever.

I fervently believe individuals working collectively through NGOs are the key ingredient to creating a better future.

What are you doing to create peace and justice?

I was awarded a Kay Camp Travel Grant and I've received an incredible amount of support from individual donors. So I think I have fulfilled my fundraising goals for this conference. That is, unless something goes wrong with my flights.

I used trip.com to find flights on multiple travel sites. It was annoying - since each travel site popped up as a new window, but it saved me money. Except, now I'm beholden to Travelocity in a weird way. I booked flights on Air India through Travelocity, flying across the globe. My departure takes me through Japan and Singapore before arriving in Mumbai. My return takes me through Frankfurt (and maybe Jersey) before returning to LA.

And then I got an email from Travelocity yesterday that my flights aren't confirmed. So I called. And after a long wait, and a confusing conversation with an operator, was told that I needed to call back after 8:30 a.m. India Standard Time. So I called back and spoke with a more confident operator who left me on hold for over 10 minutes while she spoke to Air India. Apparently, I was wait-listed on two of my four flights, but I'm now confirmed on 3 of the flights. I have to call Travelocity back on Wednesday or Thursday to see if I've gotten off the wait list on my first flight. If not, Air India will rebook me. But all of this must be completed by November 23. I suppose I really should have taken the operator's name or some way of confirming that this conversation happened, since my entire trip depends on actually arriving in India.

Why didn't I just cancel the reservation and rebook? Well, flights to India are at least $500 more than the price I "paid." So, it's possible I'll need to keep raising money around this trip.

In the meantime, I'm trying to move forward as if the trip is definitely happening. I'm flying into Mumbai and the WILPF board meeting is at Gandhi University in Ahmedabad.

I'll have about a week to be a tourist in Mumbai and Ahmedabad (with a train ride between them) before settling into 5 days of nonstop peace organizing. This Wednesday, I'll be participating in a conference call to discuss how I can help with the workshop "Strategic Planning and Campaign Building in a Digital Age."

The next six months will be a historical transition point for WILPF as an organization. I am hopeful that my integrated marketing expertise and ten year history with the organization will allow me to be a positive participant in our ongoing work.

Let's start with how radically broken the US healthcare system is. Radically, meaning at the root: at the root of the problem is the notion that gambling on whether I get sick or not is a rational way to fund health care. "Health Insurance" has no place in a rational society that recognizes the human right to health: and that in general, human beings should not be punished for the state of their health. Since its takes humanity to create the ills that befall us (see rising cancer rates. increases in asthma), humans as individuals cannot carry the burden of modernity.

Some people react to the randomness of the world by believing in religious healers. Though it is true that your mental and physical states are closely aligned, and that moral psychology can help diminish dis-ease, US healthcare will not be made better by inserting Christian Science into the officially sanctioned list of disease fighters.

At the end of the day, "prayer treatments" are probably a sham, and definitely have no place in the federal healthcare overhaul bill. But it's a minor, farcical side note to a larger transgression: in the name of political expediency, the Democratic Party threw its principles away to convert a minority, mis-informed conservative cabal that believes Economics & Individual Responsibility & Free Trade Greed will cure the US healthcare crisis.

"Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments," by Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger in the LA Times

At a later date, I hope to have time to continue this thread.

I also began receiving donations towards my participation in the January, 2010 WILPF IB Meeting, for which I am eternally grateful. To date, I have received $390 towards the trip from individuals. (Some of these donations came through PayPal, which charges a fee for its service, so the net donation amount is $382.13.)

I'm also pleased to report that I was awarded a Kay Camp Travel Grant. I wasn't informed what the amount of the grant will be, though I hope it was for $600 (the maximum available).

My current fundraising goal is $1,217.87.

My next goals: summarize the last WILPF LA bulletin into a one-page explanation of WILPF, for distribution at an upcoming Southern California Regional Conference of Organizations meetings.

After that, I'll begin working on a document to explain what communications strategy is and why it is vital to effectively distributing WILPF's messages.

I have been an active WILPF member for 10 years. I served two terms on the national board. I am a life member, having paid $500 for the privilege of having a membership that never expires. Currently, I am the convener of the international WILPF Communications Committee, which makes me a member of the International Board. I am also active on the Los Angeles branch board. I am raising money to attend the next WILPF International Board meeting.

In the recent past, I was the editor of the US Section E-Newsletter. (2008 through May, 2009. Several of my early pieces were not gathered on the E-News Archive Page.)

Why should you care? Because WILPF is vital to the future of peace and justice in the world. Because the institution is at a crossroads, in desperate need of forward movement that builds on the incredible analytical work of its founders.

Four years ago, I switched careers and became a direct marketer. While my professional career limits the amount of time I can commit to WILPF, it also enhances the skill set I bring to the organization. I now have the ability to create a communication strategy around the programmatic work of my sister WILPFers.

Like many WILPFers, I can articulate our perspectives on the world verbally and in prose. The reason I believe my participation in this meeting is vital is because I am also an integrated marketing professional. I am the translator WILPF needs: I can articulate our complicated, diplomatic language into simple English. The simplification of our message is vital in a world full of conscientious people who are overwhelmed by their personal daily struggles and deluged with the chatter of other issue advocacy organizations.

I need to raise $1,500 in the next 3 weeks to make this happen. Can you help? No amount is too small.

Did you know the only American women to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize won for their work with Women's International League for Peace and Freedom? (Jane Addams and Emily Greene Balch.)

WILPF is not just the oldest women's peace organization.
We're also at the forefront of international cooperation. WILPF was intimately involved in the negotiations that created UN Security Council Resolutions 1325, 1820, and 1888.
We also work to create a critical mass of political will for nuclear disarmament.

WILPFers work to create peace from the ground up. Our national sections choose foci that are important for their locale. In the US, our members work in local branches and national committees to challenge the status quo. We believe in human rights, dismantling the military industrial complex, and protecting the environment. We believe women's equal participation in all levels of society, including politics, is vital to the future of the world. We founded the first wave of feminism, and we'll keep riding its waves until the strength of our convictions has permanently altered the political landscape.

Does it sound like we have too many issues? That's because separation is a modern fallacy: society is inter-connected. The radiation leaked by nuclear power plants and nuclear warheads has the same effect: increasing the rates of cancer (particularly thyroid cancer). The list goes on. WILPFers before me said it best:

It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

I have applied for funds from the Kay Camp Travel Fund, administered by the Jane Addams Peace Association (JAPA is WILPF's 501(c)3 sister organization). I am also seeking assistance from my local branch. Maximum award from the Kay Camp fund is $600 and the total budget for this trip (visa, flight, conference registration) is currently $2,200. Amount will fluctuate every day until I secure the visa and purchase the airfare.

To be honest, I found it frustrating to read about women's burgeoning economic prospects with scant contemplation of our political and social rights.

In a letter to the editor, WILPF member Robin Lloyd pointed out that women's rights are guaranteed under international law: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and, UN Security Council Resolution 1325.

Yet, no one is crying out for the implementation of these laws. In October, 2008, the UN Working Group on Women, Peace & Security addressed the Security Council and reminded them of the following statistics: Since 2000, women averaged 7% of negotiators in five major UN peace processes. Fewer than 3% of the signatories in 14 peace talks were women. Read the statement in its entirety. (pdf)

At what point will the mainstream columnists start demanding the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and 1820? At what point will they recognize that not including women in conflict resolution is a major cause of instability in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's no shock that capitalism works or that most women will spend more money on family needs than booze. What is frustrating is people focusing solely on economic empowerment and staying absolutely silent on the need for women's equal involvement in the political sphere.

The magazine also made me wonder about Western prescriptions for development vs. home-grown solutions.

Should we be developing a universal blueprint for increasing women's involvement in conflict resolution, politics in general, and economics? Should we be spending more time learning from the women on the ground in conflict areas / developing countries? What's the best way to do both (push for universal human rights / implementation of UN resolutions and learn from / support women on the ground?)

I look forward to developing answers to these questions with my sister WILPFers. We've got sections around the world. Our founding mothers were determined to bring women's voices into the halls of power. And we'll continue to do so. Want to help? Donate to WILPF today.

Want to get even more involved? Become a WILPF member (all genders invited).

This news breaks my heart.

Former President Jimmy Carter wrote an op-ed in today's Washington Post highlighting the destructive nature of Israeli settlement expansion and the glimmer of hope provided by cross-border partnerships.

As a peace activist, I find it difficult to maintain hope for peace in the Middle East. The military and economic power of the Israeli government has been used for the last 61 years to occupy and subjugate Palestine, with the support of the US government. As a Jew, I am torn between my deep love of my religious heritage and ethnicity, and the belligerent political state created in my name.

As a practicing Jew, the actions of the Israeli government often feel other-worldly to me. I cannot understand how a tradition that has created some of the strongest social justice leaders throughout time has also created such belligerence. We've been persecuted throughout history, and we tend to use that persecution as a coat of invulnerability.

I believe East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza should be a sovereign country and that Israelis have no right to that land. I believe the Israeli government has the upper hand in this conflict and that Israel chooses to fight its neighbors rather than make peace.

The justification I hear most often for Israel not coming to the peace table is that Palestinians want to wipe Israel off the face of the map, so how can you negotiate with people who don't share a common world view? I cannot accept this premise: yes, some Palestinians do not want to recognize a Jewish political state; but if Israelis decided to recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian state, chose to allow Palestinians the right of self-determination (including full citizenship for Palestinian Israelis), and chose to create economic partnership with their neighbors rather than security walls, then the militants would have less power on both sides of the conflict.

Take Action

• Read the Israeli WILPF Statement Joining the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign (pdf)
  
• Join WILPF: support citizen diplomacy for creating peace in the Middle East. WILPF has sections in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon. (The above link allows you to join the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, United States Section. To donate to our international organization, click here.)
  
• Write to your local paper: call for peace negotiations and question the Israeli government's commitment to peace as they expand settlements in Occupied Palestine
  
• Review the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation's resources on challenging US policy.
  

Good to know I have something in common with POTUS (we've both met Spock). Sadly, neither the Kohanim priestly blessing nor the Vulcan salute come easily to me.

Shalom aleichem and good night.

Then the moderates pipe in that it's a shame Obama is flirting with subsidized health care, but it will be okay if the public option is a thousand and one tiny co-ops, never allowed to amass the scale needed to challenge the for-profit system.

Let's get real, folks. As the majority of US'ians know, health care is a human right, not another financial derivative waiting to be cashed in on. Being a female thyroid cancer survivor should not force me to spend $55 more than the average US'ian at CVS every single month. [My average monthly spend at CVS is $89, whereas the average US monthly spend is $34, according to Mint.com].

I noted my gender in addition to my cancer status because my dear health insurance company determined that I must pay a monthly penalty for choosing name-brand birth control; I am gouged $30 more per month than I was on my previous employer's health insurance plan.

Let's be clear: I did not choose to be susceptible to the environmental damage wreaked on my hometown by decades of military contractors. Since it is vitally important for me to maintain a steady dose of thyroid hormone, and since that hormone reacts to the levels of other hormones in my body, it's necessary for me to take brand-name birth control to ensure I always get the same amount of estrogen in my system. But nevermind all that nonsense, because a profit-seeking medicine gatekeeper decided that I must take generics whenever they are available. I can only be grateful that they didn't decide to gouge me for both medicines I take monthly.

Right, so to bring this personal frustration back to the political sphere, let me just repeat: the state of ease or dis-ease in my body is something for my doctors and me to control. No one should be able to complain that I'm not a great customer because I'm a cancer survivor: I'm a wonderful customer, since I help keep those damn pharmaceutical companies in business!

Do you know the modern health insurance industry was born in the 70s? In forty short years, they've bamboozled us out of more money than any other industrial country and created some of the worst health statistics.

What is so frightening about single payer health care? Is the upper middle class really afraid the poor will over-crowd their hospitals? (This is the argument I heard while waiting 2 hours to be admitted to Cedar-Sinai Hospital for pre-scheduled radiation treatment...as I sat, slightly delirious because I was off my meds, famished because I wasn't supposed to eat 3 hours before swallowing the toxic treatment, in the admitting waiting room while other about-to-be-patients ate their lunch and the entire intake staff took lunch at the exact same time.)

Do people really think government bureaucracy is more inept than corporate bureaucracy? At least the government has citizens' needs as their number one priority. When your primary motivation is profit, what does it matter if you kill someone by denying them treatment?

I'll never understand why more US citizens don't rise up and demand single-payer health care. I'll never understand why the former darling of the Democratic party, Senator Max Baucus refuses to allow single-payer advocates a seat at the negotiating table.