All that guilt and all those gifts make Mother’s Day one of the most commercial holidays of the year. According to IBISWorld (via Wikipedia), a publisher of business research, Americans will spend approximately $2.6 billion on flowers, $1.53 billion on pampering gifts — like spa treatments — and another $68 million on greeting cards. According to the National Restaurant Association (also via Wikipedia), Mother’s Day is now the most popular day of the year to dine out at a restaurant in the United States. We’re expected to spend close to $3.51 billion in 2008 on dining out for Mother’s Day.

But Mother’s Day is not just another Hallmark holiday. You may not know that Mother’s Day in the United States was started by Julia Ward Howe as a call to unite women against war. Which war? The American Civil War. Nice thought, but apparently we still haven’t learned much from Ms. Howe. On Mother’s Day this year, in addition to the billions we’ll spend on gifts for Mom, we’ll also spend $720 million on the continuing war in Iraq. We’ll spend it again tomorrow. And again the day after. All that adds up to an estimated $3 trillion bill for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But that cost pales in comparison to the nearly 100,000 lives lost so far. How’s that guilty motivation now? This year, in honor of Mom and Mother’s Day, I’ll spend a little more money. But this time it will be spent in the form of a donation to an anti-war organization. Maybe CODEPINK?

Lastly, I received a nice Mother’s Day gift today. Reid, Ava and I were at the grocery store this morning rounding up provisions for a nice breakfast for Amy. We were in the checkout line and the store clerk was carrying on a friendly conversation with us. He looked at Ava in the cart seat and asked, “And how are you?” Ava pointed at something in the cart and said, “I got that.” The clerk replied, “You got that? Well I’m sure Mom will like that.”

It was the first time that Ava has said anything to a stranger that was perfectly understood and replied to. I’m sure Mom will like that. Dad did too.

–

Addendum: I made two donations in honor of Mom today: One to the Collateral Repair Project to help Iraqi refugees, and one to CODEPINK’s campaigns to end the war in Iraq. Both of them made via the CODEPINK website.

I’m composing this on my BlackBerry from the back seat of a taxi in Toronto. This is the first time I’ve traveled since London. That return trip from London to Austin took 38 hours. In hour 35 of that process I learned that you are special when you receive an “SSSS” designation on your boarding pass like I did in Chicago. I like to think that SSSS stands for “Super Secret Silly Security” but the bleary-eyed TSA agent didn’t seem to agree.

Like most of you, I know that liquids are now strictly verboten in your carry on luggage. Like some of you I’ve also wondered what kind of ramification that would have on liquid purchasing, movement, and consumption through airports and airplanes in general. I awoke at 3:30 this morning to find out.

I don’t actually remember my insanely early drive to the airport, but I’m fairly certain I managed it since I’m writing this to you now. I’m staying only one night in Toronto, so I don’t have much in the way of luggage. After dutifully checking my tiny overnight bag that contains all my threatening liquids, aerosols, gels, and creams (another TSA employee informed me that “deoderant is OK”), I continued my routine and went to the food nook in the airport that pumps out breakfast tacos. Those of you not from Texas may not be aware of the breakfast taco, but I think McDonalds is starting to figure it out, so you may be exposed to a plastic facsimile of it soon. Anyway, I picked up a couple of tacos, a bottle of orange juice, and headed to the gate. At the gate I was surprised to learn, via ceiling-mounted loudspeaker, that passengers would not be allowed to bring threatening liquids, aerosols, gels, and creams onto the airplane, even if they were purchased at the airport. The same helpful loudspeaker went on to encourage me and the other passengers to finish our orange juices, dispose of the remains before boarding the flight, and to have a nice day. The combined look of surprise, confusion, and irritation on the face of the woman in mid-drink from a large water bottle was priceless. I’m sure I maintained my usual calm and collected expression. I power-slammed my orange juice (see Mom, I knew those college drinking skills would come in handy one day). The poor woman across the aisle merely stood up in disgust, threw her barely-touched $8.10 bottle of water into the trash, and stormed onto the plane. As I was boarding, I noticed a hastily posted paper sign on the gate door explaining the new policy. The funny part? It refered to the airplane as “the sterile area.”

I’m fairly certain that I’m not the only one to notice the ever-expanding ridiculousness of “the war on terror.” My question is: Do the people who come up with this stuff realize the ridiculousness, or do they really believe that these things are making Americans safer? Is this stuff a cynical attempt to distract the public into believing that something is being done to protect them, or is it just the flailing actions of a bloated, ineffective bureaucracy? I tend to favor the latter, but sometimes — especially when I watch the manipulations of Dick “torture is good” Cheney — I wonder if the former isn’t to blame.

But all speculation aside, one thing is for sure: Gatorade doesn’t explode when it’s safely tucked in the checked baggage in the hull of a passenger plane.

Rich people invest in the future. Poor people invest in Saturday.

The article then went on to extol the virtues of rich people and their glorious wisdom. You see, it was the opinion of the banker and of the American Way author that the reason that rich people are rich and poor people are poor is because rich people invest in the future, instead of just blowing all their cash on a good time on Saturday. See? Poor people are poor because they deserve it! They’re poor because spend all their money on bowling and booze on Saturday night! My thought was

You condescending bastards.

Did these jerks ever stop to consider that the reason that rich people have the ability to think about investing in the future is because they already have enough money to cover their daily needs AND their weekend entertainment? Sure, people can get richer or poorer depending upon how they save, but here’s the rub: You have to have money to save money. I’m not interested in the guy that’s never able to advance himself because he can’t manage to tuck away some of his extra dollars. I’m talking about poverty. Poor people. Poverty means that you have to decide between paying rent or buying groceries. Investing in the future simply doesn’t enter into that equation.

So does the wonderful “wisdom” of our fat little investment banker really explain poverty and wealth in this world? I don’t think so, but I do think that a lot of wealthy people keep that wisdom handy to excuse them from having to worry about it.

I was in London for a business meeting with British Telecom, supporting the sales of the software product I was hired to create. My flight to London was delayed. As I was boarding that flight, one of the attendants was saying that the inbound flight had been delayed by some concerns and heightened security in London. Over the course of the following day and a half, the story unfolded. Scotland Yard had thwarted a group of people intent on destroying several airplanes traveling from the UK to the US. The airlines and airport security were thrown into chaos. Flights into and out of the UK were cancelled or delayed by 8 to 10 hours or more. My mobile phone and email inbox lit up as friends and family awoke to the news, and were worried because they knew I was in the middle of the mess. Amy was nearly frantic knowing that I was to travel the next morning on a flight on American Airlines from London. And now at a time when such flights were marked with the US government’s “red” threat level, or the highest level possible.

I set about finding a new way home. A safer and more reliable way home. My boss had emailed me and the travel agent giving permission to spend what I needed to get out of London in the safest way possible. I arranged to leave the UK by bullet-train, and take a flight from Brussels to Munich on a non-US/UK airline, Lufthansa. From Munich I’ll go to Chicago, and from there back home to Austin.

As I sit on this train hurtling through the dark, I think about myself and my fellow travelers — a Spaniard across from me, and a French family and English businesswoman across the aisle — and I think about the differences between us and the people that are trying to kill us. The Bush regime calls them terrorists, but I believe that’s just a political word used by those in power to frighten Americans into handing over more power. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not excusing those who the Bush regime would call terrorists. I’m fully aware that there were people determined to kill me on my flight tomorrow. Believe me I’m no dove; I wouldn’t hesitate to kill them before they killed me or someone else. But I refuse to allow the Bush regime to claim to be protecting me from these enemies, while their actions do the opposite. They say that their invasion of Iraq is protecting me from people who would blow up my airplane, but I believe that the invasion is manufacturing those people. Indeed, we are making enemies faster than we can kill them. Instead of focusing our energy on finding and fighting our true enemies (has anyone heard of Osama bin Laden?), we have invaded a third-world country, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people to “protect our vital interests in the Gulf.” Anyone care to guess what those vital interests are? By now, it should be clear why we have so many enemies, and why those enemies are so motivated to kill us.

But there is another part of the motivation. Bush says that the “terrorists” hate our way of life and seek to destroy it. In some very profound ways, I think he’s right. But by that definition I too am part terrorist. I love parts of our way of life — the parts that contain iPods, high-speed undersea trains, and equal rights for women. I hate the parts that contain religious bigotry, that guzzle oil without investing in alternative energy, and that torture other human beings — and I seek to destroy those parts. But destruction of them does not come from the barrel of a gun. The more we try to protect our way of life — especially those parts that do not deserve protection — by killing people and invading their countries, the more those people turn to violent fundamentalism as the only way of fighting back. Martyrdom (aka terrorism) may be the most effective answer when you don’t have enough missiles.

We have seen that a rise of fundamentalism in the Middle East also causes a rise of fundamentalism at home, and the same people we claim to be fighting become our own political and religious leaders. Our leaders call the enemy terrorists and evil, and our leaders — because they are fundamentalists — never stop to reflect upon or question their own evil actions. And the cycle continues.

We must act directly, and sometimes violently, to protect ourselves. But protecting ourselves also must include considering the consequences of our actions, and must include that consideration into a thoughtful and integrated plan for how we continue to build and protect our way of life. Of course, this type of action is anathema to a fundamentalist who depends not on thoughtful consideration but on self-manufactured, self-serving absolute “truths” to simplify and rule his life and others.

The train banks through a turn, gathers speed, and heads toward Brussels. I can only hope the path I’ve laid out will bring me safely home.

And now here’s a picture of two lovely ladies with lettuce covering their breasts standing in front of the Alamo.