A new congressional report has found that the US has spent over $1 trillion on wars and conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere since the 9/11 attacks. “Adjusting for inflation, the outlays … make the ‘war on terrorism’ second only to World War II,” CNN reported.

According to The Cost of Major U.S. Wars report, which comapres the costs of American wars from the American Revolution to the present:

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated more than a trillion dollars for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world. The House and Senate are now considering an additional request for $33 billion in supplemental funding for the remainder of FY2010, and the Administration has also requested $159 billion to cover costs of overseas operations in FY2011. In the face of these substantial and growing sums, a recurring question has been how the mounting costs of the nation’s current wars compare to the costs of earlier conflicts.

For a price, US baby services in China will not only help expectant mothers obtain an American visa, but will also set them up in one of many Chinese-owned “baby care centers” in the US, the Washington Post reports. How can they do this? The 14th Amendment of course, which automatically grants US citizenship to anyone born on American soil.

Zhou and Chao insist that everything they do is legal, noting that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, says anyone born on U.S. soil has the right to citizenship.

“We don’t encourage moms to break the law — just to take advantage of it,” Zhou said. “It’s like jaywalking. The policeman might fine you, but it doesn’t break the law.”

“We are not snakeheads,” he added, using the common term here for Chinese gangsters involved in smuggling illegal immigrants.

U.S. officials confirm that it is not a crime to travel to the United States to give birth so that the child can have U.S. citizenship. “You don’t deny someone because you know they’re going to the U.S. to have children,” said a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing embassy rules.

Talk about a loophole!

As members of the media seem to be stumbling over themselves to either defend Shirley Sherrod or offer her their apologies, everyone seems to be missing the main point: Shirley Sherrod, a U.S. government official, admitted that racism affected her treatment of an American taxpayer. I have no intention of commenting on the full context of Sherrod’s statements, as it does not matter. Regardless of the larger meaning, Sherrod admitted to treating a constituent differently because of his race. Whether or not she helped him in the end is irrelevant. When it is uncovered that a government official overseeing billions of taxpayer dollars did not discharge her duties appropriately (and, moreover, that the failure was motivated by racism), that official should be terminated immediately. I am not suggesting that Sherrod face any penalties, but is it really so extreme to assert that she should no longer be placed in charge of billions of taxpayer dollars? Sherrod clearly has a problem discharging her duties when they involve assisting white people. If that is the case, then she should not be employed by an organization (such as the federal government) that is charged with looking after the interests of a group of people that includes whites.

Shirley Sherrod is not the victim. She is a U.S. government official that openly admitted to treating an American citizen differently because of his race – and that is not a fact that can be altered by the context of her statement.

The Daily What finds this great video:

Fabian Brunsing’s public art installation “Pay & Sit: The Private Bench” imagines a dystopian tomorrow in which even the most quotidian of conveniences — resting a moment on a park bench — have become soulless objects of enterprise.

I can’t help but chuckle that a guy named Fabian disagrees with the concept of a private bench.