Germany has a female chancelor.

Liberia has just elected it's first female president.

The Phillipines, New Zealand, Finland and Bangladesh are all led by women, so I ask you, dear reader, if these countries, some less developed than the US, can be directed and led by women why can't the US too be led by a woman?

As a society that prides itself on gender equality and the ability for a woman to choose her own path in this life why hasn't the US already elected at least one female president?

Britain, our closest ally was ruled and led by a woman for ten years during the 80s years before we even started to seriously consider a female for president.

Yet in 2005 a majority in our society still think the US populace is not ready for a female president and therefore will not support or endorse a female candidate.

But is it the populace or the old boys networks that are in place throught the political and business domains that are not only, not ready, but wouldn't be able to stand the idea of taking orders or being beholden to a woman?

hmm.. but I ask you is their position on this issue quite hypocritical (and if you're scared of a female president too, ask yourself why and really think about it and tell me why)?

Since many of these men in high position across our country travel the globe speaking to business and national leaders about gender equality and woman's rights yet here at home, they along with others are still afraid and hesitant to elect a qualified female to lead our nation? 

I believe that we can't and shouldn't preach to others what we ourselves are afraid of doing.

Although the status of women in the US is far, far above many, many nations we could hold our heads even higher if we not only chose to endorse a female candidate for president, Republican or Democrat, but go even further and elect a woman who is qualified and who embodies our nation's spirit and determination to show women at home and abroad that women are not only equal to men in words but are and can be in deeds and spirit as well.

Over the last couple of days I've been listening and reading Michael Ware's articles and comments on the Iraq war.

Michael Ware, Baghdad Bureau Chief for Time Magazine is not only passionate about his work but his views and the information he is providing in his articles and on CNN gives a clear picture on what I believe is 'really' taking place in Iraq and for that and his candor during the live interviews I say well done Mr.Ware, keep up the good work!!

Donald Rumsfield, today chastized the media for their bias and unflattering portrayal of the Iraq war.

In his opinion they are covering too much of the bad and not enough of the good (what good is there?). 

But I ask you friends, if you bought an ugly pair&nb sp;of curtains (the current administration's strategy or lack thereof in Iraq) and decid ed to put them up in your house do the curtains stop being ugly just because your house is beauti ful?

No, the curtains are ugly! They are ugly no matter how you try to change them around or move them from room to room, even if you paint the entire house to match the curtains the fact remains the CURTAINS ARE UGLY!!! and there is only one thing left to do GET RID OF THE DAMN CURTAINS!!!

And that's the problem with this adminstration they can't get rid of the damn curtains!!

You see they have to hold on the curtains, they can't get rid of the curtains so when they invite people over all that people can see are those ugly curtains!

And can you blame them?

They can't convince their own friends that the curtains are at least decent and worth keeping so how the hell can they expect to convince you and me?

But I believe we've finally seen the truth so with or without the media the Iraq will bring the curtains down on the REPUBLICANS come 2006!!!

And finally we will be able to buy some new curtains!

''Every 18 seconds a women somewhere suffers violence or mistreatment..'' Elena Salgado Spanish Health Minister.

Many of us live in societies where we are taught to appreciate the value of human life. Where the role of mother is revered above all other roles.

Yet today in many societies including ours many, many, many women are suffering alone and in silence as the partners they trust and in many cases love abuse them violently emotionally and physically.

One in six women according to the World Health Organisation suffers domestic abuse.

Listen again..ONE IN SIX WOMEN SUFFERS DOMESTIC ABUSE..GLOBALLY!!!

As societies across the globe seek international aid for the development of their societies I am firm believer that aid should not be given unconditionally. And one of the requirements for any society seeking international aid should be a commitment to the development of women!

First in the form of education and second in the form of economic opportunity and empowerment.

As we speak here in the US about the possibility of a female president other societies have taken the step not only to nominate but have chosen female leaders New Zealand, Germany and Liberia are now led by a woman.

Yet, today women are still subjected to abuse by their most intimate partners.

I know that domestic violence will never be gone entirely but in societies that actively seek to oppress women and to keep them locked in a state of subservience, a breeding ground for domestic violence, these societies should not only be condemned but face the harshest penalties if they persist in the maltreatment of women.

And in societies like ours where women are equal and guaranteed equal protection under the law to men we must pursue and prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence regardless of the statue in society.

Violent acts against random individuals is not tolerated why then should it be tolerated from a loved ones?

George Bush has agreed to allow Iran to enrich uranium in Russia. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/2 0/wiran20.xml&" title="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/2 0/wiran20.xml&" target="_blank"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...;sSheet=/news/2005/11/20/ ixnewstop.html

This would allow one of the most critical activities in the process required to develop nuclear weapons to be monitored by an outside body and more importantly a US ally.

I'm sure the administration is thinking that by doing so they would be able not only to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon but also to fully ascertain how far Iran has reached in the process.

But I wonder, if George Bush and his officials have really had a 'change of heart' and are more willing to use diplomacy instead of 'the big stick' to reign in Iran?

Or is this just another ploy?

I must agree that regardless of the outcome here the idea is a good one, if you can't monitor 'your enemy' yourself then get one of friend's to do it for you.

And if Iran refuses and that is a big possiblity you will be looked upon favorably by your allys and gain much needed 'kudo' points for trying to avert a confrontation.

However, I really wonder how long this change of tactics will last and has the Bush administration truly realised that waving the 'big stick' (although it has it's place) doesn't always work.

This afternoon on CNN Republican Speaker of the House Denis Hastert basically said that what has occurred in France is the equivalent to terrorism.

I don't know how this gentleman was able to make the correlation between French born youth rioting because they do not feel included in French society and terrorism maybe he has access to some secret information that the rest of us don't but just to inform you dear reader the  only connection between the youths and terrorism is the fact that many happen to be muslim.

This is where the connection ends.

The youths weren't rioting to overthrow French society they were rioting to BE INCLUDED in it.  Big, big difference.

And their act of rioting although disruptive have also been seen among disenfranchised people in the US and Britain.

In addition, France has been one of the most proactive societies in dealing with terrorist, possible terrorist acts and clamping down on Islamic fundamentalism in their society.

So trying to equate what happened in France to their 'lack or unwillingness' to deal with terrorist within in their borders is not only misguided but horribly incorrect.

Maybe someone over at the New Republic is reading my blog?

I talked about this a few blogs ago.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051114&" title="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051114&" target="_blank"http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?...;s=forsyth111605

I've talked about this before in previous blogs but I've been forced to talk about it again.

Have all the smart and tolerant people in the world drowned in the filth that is being espewed by the Bill O'Reilly's and Pat Robertson's of the US?

I mean, every single time I turn on the television I'm constantly being bombarded with the 'dumbing down' of American society.

Every issue is being placed in two simple neat black or white packages and society, let alone Amerian society cannot and does not work like that.

So why are we allowing others to tell us that this is the way it has to be?

Can't we do better than this? HAVEN'T we done better in the past? Shouldn't we demand respect for each other's views and display tolerance of those views even if we don't agree with them?

Is that what we're all about? Or have fanatics kidnapped that as well?

For instance why is it ok for a prominent, public person to call for the destruction of his country men? And the reaction and condemnation although swift is no where close to the reaction to a woman in a vegetative state?

You tell me?

Well, I am personally calling on smart people to stop minding their own business, and to stand up for the values that have made this country great.

Stand up against the Bill O'Reilly's and Pat Robertson's because if we don't sooner or later WE will be the minority.