She pondered only a few seconds before responding. "How could anyone complain about saying food's more important than weapons," she said, without really raising the question — as if the answer was clear. "It's not like being political."

So off she went with her "Bread Not Bombs" button.

And, as often happens, I started thinking, which usually gets me in trouble.

It makes sense, I guess, to place food on a higher level than bombs — especially in school and with all the talk these days about character education.

The utter simplicity and innocence of "Bread Not Bombs" reminded me of some of the anti-war slogans of the 1960s. You know, "Make Love Not War." "Ban the Bomb." "What if they had a war and nobody came?" and other such naive and idealistic sentiments.

But maybe what we need is a return to the basics, so to speak, to help us keep some perspective on our priorities.

"Bread Not Bombs" works on many levels. It could just be symbolic for wanting the government to reduce military spending in favor of domestic social programs that help people meet their basic needs, such as food.

After all, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one in nine Americans isn't sure where his or her next meal will come from. And the Census recently reported there were increases in the numbers of poor people and those without health insurance last year.

I'm sure people over the years have worn the button to advocate redirecting some our resources to the needs of the poor. In fact, there's a national organization called Bread Not Bombs dedicated to curtailing the problem of hunger in the United States.

Similarly, there's the organization Food Not Bombs in the U.S., Canada and Britain with the same goal but some different strategies. My daughter was involved in the Syracuse chapter a few years ago, when volunteers would work with supermarkets to obtain their so-called food waste and then every Saturday prepare a huge meal for the hungry.

But today, with Congress poised to authorize the president to wage war against Iraq, the simple idealism of "Bread Not Bombs" takes on a new and vastly different significance.

Congressional budget experts said fighting Iraq would cost up to $9 billion a month. And that's not counting the billions we're spending on the war against terrorism, which can be much more easily justified because of last year's attacks.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said another $5 billion to $7 billion would be required to bring the troops home after a war. The monthly cost of a postwar peacekeeping force — excluding humanitarian aid, reconstruction and the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction (provided we find some) — would be $1 billion to $4 billion.

All these numbers in the billions are dizzying. Most of us can't imagine how much money they're talking about. In comparison, however, Congress appropriated $4.4 billion for the Women Infants and Children (WIC) food program for 2002, and it helps feed about 7 million people a month, most of whom are children.

Of course, our leaders are quick to point out that the cost of an invasion should not be a factor in the discussion.

"This debate should not be driven by how much it will cost U.S. taxpayers," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., this week. But he said it was important to keep in mind that three months of combat with a heavy ground force and a five-year occupation by a large U.S. force could cost more than $272 billion.

We know we can spend all that money on a war against Iraq and in the process kill a lot of soldiers and civilians, devastate the nation's infrastructure, destabilize the Middle East even more and, yes, oust Saddam. But let's swing the pendulum over to the "bread" side of the equation.

What if we were to spend that $272 billion over the next five years on people's real needs in the areas of food, health care, sanitation and alternative energy sources. And not just here at home, but around the world.

Would not such an act do more to make the world a safer place than waging war?

But as the war-hawks whoop it up in Washington, they're debating whether to limit the war to Iraq, not the question of going to war with Iraq.

Anyhow, I guess it is safe to wear that "Bread Not Bombs" button, since it's so hard to imagine what it means.

Cary Brunswick is managing editor of The Daily Star. He can be reached at (607) 441-7217 or cary@thedailystar.com.