Following up on a recent read quoting US military spending of 450 billion, I did some quick mental math. Clearly that number was wrong - that's in the order of 1 1/4 billion dollars a day; even 'they' couldn't be spending that fast. Besides, Google wasn't yielding much info at first.
Till I hit upon the fact that the current defense budget is in fact 532.8 billion dollars, closer to 1 1/2 billion dollars. A. Day.
And that the 2008 budget calls for 717 billion dollars. 2 a day.

How?



The death and taxes 2008 poster provides an interesting visual representation of the 2008 federal discretionary budget (of which 67% is military/national security). 67 billion are set aside for Health and Human Services.

I must repeat myself though, how can almost 2 billion dollars be spent on offense and 'defense' every day? Even on holidays.

------

An article on adoption in a French parenting magazine grabbed my attention. France has recently set up a national adoption agency, prior to which it has been impossible to adopt foreign children. The agency comes under much criticism on its stance to refuse to retribute countries and institutions in exchange for children. They take the moral high stance that children are not a trade; critics claim that they need to get a reality check.
Despite declining numbers of children 'available' for adoption worldwide, the US adopts increasing numbers of foreign children. How come, asked frustrated infertile French adults?

Apparently, the US sets up bilateral agreements with poor countries, in which they pay for a quota of children to be 'given' to the US.
Read that again. The government is paying other countries for children. The French in me (i'm still 100% French says my passport) is shocked out of her socks.

What else hides in trade agreements?
I mean, we sort of know about the large chunks which are just money funneled back to the US, such as weapons sales and so on.
But who can help us and demistify those bilateral agreements, help us read between the lines? Any good links or clues appreciated, thx.

-----

"life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Sounds familiar enough.
But I can't figure out what they meant by, the unalienable right to life. As opposed to the right to death? I don't believe abortion rights were at the forefront of their thinking, so what does that mean?