Check out this web site for some parodies of the recent "be ready" advice. PRICELESS.

And of course The Onion nails it once again.

ANNOUNCING A WRITING CONTEST: WOMEN'S VOICES IN WAR ZONES

Information about the contest is also available at http://www.wworld.org

Since Sept. 11, 2001 there has been constant public reference to concepts of terror, war, and security, but little debate about their meaning, which differs from place to place and person to person. And the voices of women and girls, both within the US and in the rest of the world, have been conspicuously absent from the discussion.

To bring forward women's ideas on this subject, and enable them to be heard in the public arena, Women's WORLD, a global free speech network of feminist writers, is initiating a writing contest which will be co-sponsored by the The Nation Institute, whose mission is to defend freedom of expression and strengthen the independent media. The subject is Women's Voices in War Zones.

Eligibility: All women are welcome to participate; age and citizenship are no barrier. We are particularly interested in seeing work from writers, activists, students, and immigrants or refugees.

Rules: Submissions must be previously unpublished personal essays of 1000 words or less, in English, that address one or more of the following questions:

What does the term "war zone" mean to you? Do you live in a war zone or state of terror? Is it personal or public? Who is or are the aggressors? How do you resist? What keeps you going? Where does your hope or security lie? How do you imagine bringing this terror to an end? Does your government or society or family provide you with security or is it a source of your unease?

We will read only one entry per person.

All entries must also include either a one page vita with contact information, or a short biographical statement with the writer's full name and contact information: mailing address, phone or fax numbers, and email address.

Submissions can be sent by email to the following address: ratna @wworld.org; or by fax or post to Women's WORLD, 208 w.30th St., #901, New York NY 10001. fax 212-947-2973. Email submissions are preferred.

Deadline: Submissions must be received by 5 pm (Eastern Standard Time) on May 1, 2003. Winners will be announced in early June.

Prizes: Prizes will be given to women in three categories: 1) residents of the US; 2) residents of other countries; 3) immigrants or refugees in any country.

There will be three first prizes of $250, and three second prizes of $100. Winning essays will be published on the The Nation website and the websites of Women's WORLD and its affiliates; announced to the press; and circulated to global email lists.

Copyright: By sending us an essay, contestants automatically give Women's WORLD the right to publish it in any form and to license others to do so, whether or not the essay wins a prize.

Judges: The judges will be a diverse panel of three established writers.

Meredith Tax, President
Women's WORLD
208 W. 30th St., #901
New York NY 10001
Tel. 212-947-2915
Fax: 212-947-2973
Email: wworld@igc.org or meredith.tax@verizon.net
http://www.wworld.org

Good luck!

I just read a NY Times Editorial Op/Ed (via Marshmallows and Bile) : Ready for the Peace?

The first few paragraphs read:

"Now that U.S. strikes against Iraq have begun, we should get rid of one canard immediately, and that's the notion that criticism of the Bush administration and opposition to this invasion imply in some sense a lack of support or concern for the men and women who are under arms.

The names of too many of my friends are recorded on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial for me to tolerate that kind of nonsense. I hope that the war goes well, that our troops prevail quickly and that casualties everywhere are kept to a minimum."

This reminded me of the two things that have always bothered me when it comes to the debate between pro-war and anti-war Americans.

First, there's the traditional criticism that war-supporters will fling at anti-war demonstrators, "You don't support our troops!" This has never made any sense to me. Anti-war demonstrations logically mean that they don't want our troops going off to some war somewhere. That also means that they'd rather have those troops safely at home, with their families and friends. Anti-war demonstrators usually don't want their troops to have to risk their lives for whatever conflict they are protesting. I never could see how pro-war critics could interpret this as "not supporting our troops".

Then there's the other side of the coin - the anti-war demonstrators who tend to demonize and criticize military personnel for obeying orders and doing their job by going off to fight in some conflict. That never made any sense to me either! I can honestly say that I like living in a country where the military doesn't pick and choose what orders from the government they're going to obey. I think it's a good thing that our troops do their job even if they don't particularly agree with it. Why? Well the alternative is that they refuse to do what the government asks them to or, as in a few other countries, they decide they know better what to do and take over the government. No, no - I'd much rather our military agrees to obey the commander-in-chief. Let it be MY (and other citizen's) job to say the commander-in-chief's decisions stink and be critical when he orders troops to do something.

Anyway.