The weary traveler is home. Nick and I went to Minneapolis over a two-day spurt to see the Mall of America. First day, we stop in Mason City, Iowa to get fuel and food and also to realize, no thanks to my best friend Kay, that it is the home of Meredith Wilson who wrote the Music Man one of my three favorite musicals. And, the home of a house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Kay was a little bit in trouble for failing to mention this, but I forgive you because I just realized that I forgot all about calling you the next day to see if we could meet up, and please forgive me cause that is way worse of a transgression, and I will definitely be visiting soon!!! Okay...anyway. We reach Minneapolis and find our hotel. It's a small room. With a really small bathroom. I mean, no elbow room. A shower, a sink, a toilet, a hairdryer that if you tried to use would probably result in a broken elbow and concussion. It was that small. So, naturally, we hurried out of there and headed to the Mall. Huge. Enormous. Gigantic. Will we be able to find the car again? large. We entered through Bloomingdale's which was really cool. Then sort of stared in awe for a little bit and walked around. And then we decided to go to the aquarium. Of COURSE they have an aquarium! It's the largest underground aquarium, in the world, I think. And we saw fish and sharks and sea horses and sea turtles and THEN, we petted sharks and rays. I got a sticker that says I touched a shark! It was flippin' cool! Awesome! Then we walked around some more. Found a store devoted to all things Irish, where Nick bought me a history of the last name Regan. Found out that one branch of my royal family (yes, I'm Irish royalty!) kinda, sorta kicked some Danes asses. Nick gave me a look cause he's part Danish. Hehehe. We ate at the Bubba Gump Shrimp company. Good food, but really greasy. So greasy, I really can't think about eating greasy food for awhile. But good. We bought postcards, walked, saw the Legos center, played, walked, walked, and oh, yeah, walked some more. Went into Sephora which was amazing. Went to the Apple store where I drooled over the laptop I want. Walked some more. Basically it was a walking trip, and I'm glad to sit on my couch now that we're back. But it was so cool! And I can't wait to see what we'll plan on next. Maybe Chicago?!
Other news: Nick got a scholarship to go to Canada for a library conference. Oh, and he's planned his train trip to Prague from Berlin this summer and his mom is excited! It also means we're driving down at the end of May to drop him off, see my niece graduate 8th grade and then he'll head to the exciting European continent, and I'll head to Iowa to work. Anyway, that's my story.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Some of the new stuff I've been reading about
I've been branching out, reading more about the history of women's rights in America - not just abortion, but work and job related, health related, etc. And this article was interesting because it touched on some stuff I have been reading about. I think even my pro-life readers will agree with some of it - even if it is just a little bit.
Towards A Real Culture Of Life
Lynn M. Paltrow
March 12, 2007
Lynn M. Paltrow is the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
Many people in the U.S. work to protect the rights of pregnant women and to ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. But as a result of the divisive abortion debate, many of those advocates typically do not work together—or even speak to one another.
The anti-abortion movement has successfully used the abortion issue to divide the electorate, and a key part of their strategy has been creating the illusion that there are two kinds of women: those who have abortions and those who have babies. The truth is that 61 percent of women who have abortions are already mothers, and another 24 percent will go on to become mothers. Over the course of their lives, 85 percent of all women bring life into this world and provide the vast majority of care for the lives of those around them—without compensation.
This means that whether someone is an abortion provider or pro- choice advocate defending the right to choose abortion—or a midwife, doula, or birthing rights advocate seeking to ensure that women have access to health care providers that listen to and support them—they are advocating for the same women, regardless of their position on abortion.
Members of both groups struggle with U.S. policies that run counter to women’s health and well being. Both know that many pregnant women are not receiving the information or support they need. Both represent pregnant women who lack protection from workplace discrimination—and lack supports available to women in virtually every other western industrialized country, like a national health care system and paid maternity leave.
Both groups are hurt by state legislative agendas that focus on restricting abortion to the exclusion of virtually every other health issue concerning pregnant women and mothers. (In the 2005 legislative session, over 650 bills were introduced that would directly or indirectly restrict access to abortion and contraception or advance the legal status of the fetus as if it were separate from the pregnant woman.)
Despite these shared challenges and their shared commitment to the health and rights or pregnant women—whether or not there is agreement on abortion—pro-choice and birthing rights advocates have only recently begun to talk, organize, or advocate based on their shared interests.
Finding common ground among these two groups, and beginning to build a broad-based coalition of activists were two of the primary goals of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women when we sponsored the 2007 Summit to Ensure the Health and Humanity of Pregnant and Birthing Women earlier this year in Atlanta.
The summit brought together over 300 maternal, birthing and reproductive rights/justice activists along with social justice activists, legal and policy experts and healthcare providers from 37 states, the District of Columbia, Mexico and Canada. It was co-sponsored by more than 60 organizations ranging from advocates for mother-friendly childbirth to those that advocate for the right to choose an abortion.
Participants moved beyond the divisive abortion debate to find common ground in the experiences of pregnancy and the increasing limitations to care and support that all pregnant and birthing women face.
For pro-choice advocates these barriers include laws that mislead or misinform women about abortion. Twenty-eight states currently mandate that women seeking abortion receive an approved set of materials that often contain misleading information (for example, raising expectations for benefits or child support if she continues to term that she may very well be unable to collect). Millions of government dollars are being spent on medically inaccurate abstinence-only education. Millions more in state and federal funding goes to pregnancy crisis centers whose staff have been caught red-handed providing false information to pregnant women about abortion.
But not only women seeking to end a pregnancy are being deprived of information. Today, caesarian sections account for nearly one in three births in the U.S., a statistic that far exceeds international recommendations. Even though c-sections constitute significant invasive surgery with a considerable recovery period, only two states, New York and Massachusetts, mandate that their hospitals provide women who are going to term with specific information regarding their birth-related practices.
Both pro-choice advocates and birthing rights advocates are challenged by decreasing access to services: the former struggles with the fact that 87 percent of all U.S. counties have no abortion providers; the latter struggles against policies at over 300 hospitals around the country that deny women who have previously had c-sections the right to even try delivering vaginally.
And both have been negatively affected by growing claims of “fetal rights.” While these are advanced as part of the campaign to outlaw abortion, they have begun to effect the lives of women who personally identify as “pro-life.” Christian fundamentalists have been told that they must have unnecessary c-sections to protect the rights of the fetus; pregnant women opposed to abortions have been arrested as child abusers in the name of fetal rights for things they did or did not do during pregnancy.
We saw at the summit that pro-choice advocates and birthing rights advocates can work together, whether they are identifying civil and human rights violations or formulating an agenda that genuinely values pregnant women, maternal health and motherhood.
The time has come to move away from divisive (and inaccurate) “pro-life” and “pro-choice” categorizations and stand together. We need broad based support for laws and policies that genuinely promote a culture of life—one that includes and values the women who give that life.
Reject Bush's Health Care Plan March 12, 2007
Towards A Real Culture Of Life March 12, 2007
Seeking Justice In The Drug War March 12, 2007
Iraq: Pulled Out Or Pushed Out March 09, 2007
Who Cares For Incarcerated Girls? March 09, 2007
ARCHIVES
Sign up for our free daily dispatch.
Privacy Policy
Towards A Real Culture Of Life
Lynn M. Paltrow
March 12, 2007
Lynn M. Paltrow is the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
Many people in the U.S. work to protect the rights of pregnant women and to ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. But as a result of the divisive abortion debate, many of those advocates typically do not work together—or even speak to one another.
The anti-abortion movement has successfully used the abortion issue to divide the electorate, and a key part of their strategy has been creating the illusion that there are two kinds of women: those who have abortions and those who have babies. The truth is that 61 percent of women who have abortions are already mothers, and another 24 percent will go on to become mothers. Over the course of their lives, 85 percent of all women bring life into this world and provide the vast majority of care for the lives of those around them—without compensation.
This means that whether someone is an abortion provider or pro- choice advocate defending the right to choose abortion—or a midwife, doula, or birthing rights advocate seeking to ensure that women have access to health care providers that listen to and support them—they are advocating for the same women, regardless of their position on abortion.
Members of both groups struggle with U.S. policies that run counter to women’s health and well being. Both know that many pregnant women are not receiving the information or support they need. Both represent pregnant women who lack protection from workplace discrimination—and lack supports available to women in virtually every other western industrialized country, like a national health care system and paid maternity leave.
Both groups are hurt by state legislative agendas that focus on restricting abortion to the exclusion of virtually every other health issue concerning pregnant women and mothers. (In the 2005 legislative session, over 650 bills were introduced that would directly or indirectly restrict access to abortion and contraception or advance the legal status of the fetus as if it were separate from the pregnant woman.)
Despite these shared challenges and their shared commitment to the health and rights or pregnant women—whether or not there is agreement on abortion—pro-choice and birthing rights advocates have only recently begun to talk, organize, or advocate based on their shared interests.
Finding common ground among these two groups, and beginning to build a broad-based coalition of activists were two of the primary goals of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women when we sponsored the 2007 Summit to Ensure the Health and Humanity of Pregnant and Birthing Women earlier this year in Atlanta.
The summit brought together over 300 maternal, birthing and reproductive rights/justice activists along with social justice activists, legal and policy experts and healthcare providers from 37 states, the District of Columbia, Mexico and Canada. It was co-sponsored by more than 60 organizations ranging from advocates for mother-friendly childbirth to those that advocate for the right to choose an abortion.
Participants moved beyond the divisive abortion debate to find common ground in the experiences of pregnancy and the increasing limitations to care and support that all pregnant and birthing women face.
For pro-choice advocates these barriers include laws that mislead or misinform women about abortion. Twenty-eight states currently mandate that women seeking abortion receive an approved set of materials that often contain misleading information (for example, raising expectations for benefits or child support if she continues to term that she may very well be unable to collect). Millions of government dollars are being spent on medically inaccurate abstinence-only education. Millions more in state and federal funding goes to pregnancy crisis centers whose staff have been caught red-handed providing false information to pregnant women about abortion.
But not only women seeking to end a pregnancy are being deprived of information. Today, caesarian sections account for nearly one in three births in the U.S., a statistic that far exceeds international recommendations. Even though c-sections constitute significant invasive surgery with a considerable recovery period, only two states, New York and Massachusetts, mandate that their hospitals provide women who are going to term with specific information regarding their birth-related practices.
Both pro-choice advocates and birthing rights advocates are challenged by decreasing access to services: the former struggles with the fact that 87 percent of all U.S. counties have no abortion providers; the latter struggles against policies at over 300 hospitals around the country that deny women who have previously had c-sections the right to even try delivering vaginally.
And both have been negatively affected by growing claims of “fetal rights.” While these are advanced as part of the campaign to outlaw abortion, they have begun to effect the lives of women who personally identify as “pro-life.” Christian fundamentalists have been told that they must have unnecessary c-sections to protect the rights of the fetus; pregnant women opposed to abortions have been arrested as child abusers in the name of fetal rights for things they did or did not do during pregnancy.
We saw at the summit that pro-choice advocates and birthing rights advocates can work together, whether they are identifying civil and human rights violations or formulating an agenda that genuinely values pregnant women, maternal health and motherhood.
The time has come to move away from divisive (and inaccurate) “pro-life” and “pro-choice” categorizations and stand together. We need broad based support for laws and policies that genuinely promote a culture of life—one that includes and values the women who give that life.
Reject Bush's Health Care Plan March 12, 2007
Towards A Real Culture Of Life March 12, 2007
Seeking Justice In The Drug War March 12, 2007
Iraq: Pulled Out Or Pushed Out March 09, 2007
Who Cares For Incarcerated Girls? March 09, 2007
ARCHIVES
Sign up for our free daily dispatch.
Privacy Policy
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Some pics
My niece Kaylin with Sophie.
Sophie crashed on Nick's Shoulder
Sophie helping with my Christmas cookies. She must be hungry!
Leo and Sophie LOVE to cuddle!!!
Monday, March 05, 2007
Razors
Okay, faithful blog readers, and commenters. I need some advice. Have any of you found a really good, fairly cheap razor. I've tried the Venus ones, but they're so expensive! I need one that are good, but also cheaper. I'm sorry you guys, but unless you have found a good, fairly inexpensive razor that will work well on my legs, you probably won't be able to comment. So in a sense this is a sexist blog. Thanks for any help!
Friday, March 02, 2007
Friday
I love Fridays. Today, after two weeks of rushing around, not getting enough sleep, or rest, doing all that adult stuff that takes up so much time, energy, stress, I acted like a teenager and slept in..until 9:30. Not exactly like a teenager. And I had coffee, which I never did as a teenager. But I stayed up later last night, slept in today, and then read a cheesy romance novel I'd started last night and finished it. No worries about getting to work on time or making sure I had everything done before or after. So nice to have peace and quiet every now and then.
Nick told me the other day he had a surprise idea for me, and then asked me how I'd feel about visiting Minneapolis for two days over spring break (I will only have two days off). I immediately began looking at the website to Mall of America: they have an aquarium there! Major cool! And of course, a lot of stores. Chicago would probably have been our next choice, but it's more expensive than Minneapolis and we have to have a budget trip. But still, I'm so excited. This is sort of our first vacation together. Before we started dating we did check out college campuses together, but we kept it clean! Not that I'm saying this one will be dirty, but it will be nice to travel as a couple. Especially since we both want to go to so many place. It's like our first start on traveling around the world - and it may be short - but I think that will make it really special. At the end of May, he and his mom are traveling to Berlin and Prague. I'm so jealous! But only cause I can't wait to go to Berlin and Prague with him! Of course, this way, he'll know a little more about the city (well, Prague, because he studied in Germany for awhile so he already knows Berlin quite a bit). Anyway, that's a bunch of kinda fun stuff. Much more fun than that article I posted - which was so sad and depressing. Have a great weekend everybody!!!!
Nick told me the other day he had a surprise idea for me, and then asked me how I'd feel about visiting Minneapolis for two days over spring break (I will only have two days off). I immediately began looking at the website to Mall of America: they have an aquarium there! Major cool! And of course, a lot of stores. Chicago would probably have been our next choice, but it's more expensive than Minneapolis and we have to have a budget trip. But still, I'm so excited. This is sort of our first vacation together. Before we started dating we did check out college campuses together, but we kept it clean! Not that I'm saying this one will be dirty, but it will be nice to travel as a couple. Especially since we both want to go to so many place. It's like our first start on traveling around the world - and it may be short - but I think that will make it really special. At the end of May, he and his mom are traveling to Berlin and Prague. I'm so jealous! But only cause I can't wait to go to Berlin and Prague with him! Of course, this way, he'll know a little more about the city (well, Prague, because he studied in Germany for awhile so he already knows Berlin quite a bit). Anyway, that's a bunch of kinda fun stuff. Much more fun than that article I posted - which was so sad and depressing. Have a great weekend everybody!!!!
Friday, February 23, 2007
Isn't this sad?
Violating Iraqi Women
Yifat Susskind
February 22, 2007
Yifat Susskind is communications director of MADRE , an international women's human rights organization. She is the author of a new report on violence against women in U.S.-occupied Iraq.
The international news media is flooded with images of a woman in a pink headscarf recounting a shattering experience of rape by members of the Iraqi National Police. Most of the media coverage has focused on her taboo-breaking decision to speak publicly about the assault, but has missed two crucial points for understanding—and combating—sexual violence by Iraqi police recruits.
As Iraqi women’s organizations have documented, sexualized torture is a routine horror in Iraqi jails. While this woman may be the first Iraqi rape survivor to appear on television, she is hardly the first to accuse the Iraqi National Police of sexual assault. At least nine Iraqi organizations as well as Amnesty International, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq and the Brussels Tribunal have documented the sexualized torture of Iraqi women while in police custody. These include Women’s Will, Occupation Watch, the Women’s Rights Association , the Iraqi League, the Iraqi National Association of Human Rights, the Human Rights’ Voice of Freedom, the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Iraqi National Media and Culture Organization.
According to Iraqi human rights advocate and writer Haifa Zangana, the first question asked of female detainees in Iraq is, “Are you Sunni or Shia?” The second is, “Are you a virgin?”
Next week, MADRE , an international women’s human rights organization, will release a report that documents the widespread use of rape and other forms of torture against female detainees in Iraq by U.S. and Iraqi forces. The report includes testimonies collected by the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) of numerous rape survivors. Since November 2005, OWFI has conducted a Women’s Prison Watch project and has found that “torture and rape are common procedure of investigation in police stations run by the militias affiliated with the government, mostly the Mahdi and Badr militias,” according to their summer 2006 report.
These are the same sectarian Shiite militias that have been prosecuting Iraq’s civil war, the same militias that stepped into the power vacuum created by the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and the same militias that have been systematically attacking Iraqi women in their bid to establish an Islamist theocracy. As the occupying power in Iraq, the U.S. was obligated under the Geneva Conventions to provide security to Iraqi civilians, including protection from sex-based violence. But the U.S. military, preoccupied with battling the Iraqi insurgency, simply ignored the reign of terror that Islamist militias were imposing on women, including a campaign of assassinations, rapes, acid attacks and public beatings targeting women perceived to pose a challenge to the project of turning Iraq into a theocracy.
By 2005, the U.S. was actively aiding the militias. As the “cakewalk” envisioned by U.S. war planners quickly devolved into the quagmire is the Iraq War, the U.S. began to cultivate Shiite militias to help battle the Sunni-led insurgency. According to Newsweek, the plan was dubbed the “Salvador Option,” recalling the use of militias by the U.S. to bolster right-wing regimes in 1980s Central America. Today, the Mahdi Army controls the police forces of Baghdad and Basra , Iraq’s two largest cities. The Badr Brigade is headquartered in Iraq’s Ministry of Interior, which directs the country’s police, intelligence and paramilitary units. And the United Nations special investigator on torture is reporting that torture in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam Hussein.
It’s no surprise that we’re hearing allegations of rape against the Iraqi National Police, considering who trained them. DynCorp, the private contractor that the Bush Administration hired to prepare Iraq’s new police force for duty, has an ugly record of violence against women. The company was contracted by the federal government in the 1990s to train police in the Balkans. Human Rights Watch reports that DynCorp employees were found to have systematically committed sex crimes against women, including “owning” young women as slaves . One DynCorp site supervisor videotaped himself raping two women. Despite evidence, the contractors never faced criminal charges.
Contrary to its rhetoric and its international legal obligations, the Bush Administration has refused to protect women’s rights in Iraq. In fact, it has decisively traded women’s rights for cooperation from the Islamists it has helped boost to power. Torture of women in detention is one symptom of this broader crisis.
Yifat Susskind
February 22, 2007
Yifat Susskind is communications director of MADRE , an international women's human rights organization. She is the author of a new report on violence against women in U.S.-occupied Iraq.
The international news media is flooded with images of a woman in a pink headscarf recounting a shattering experience of rape by members of the Iraqi National Police. Most of the media coverage has focused on her taboo-breaking decision to speak publicly about the assault, but has missed two crucial points for understanding—and combating—sexual violence by Iraqi police recruits.
As Iraqi women’s organizations have documented, sexualized torture is a routine horror in Iraqi jails. While this woman may be the first Iraqi rape survivor to appear on television, she is hardly the first to accuse the Iraqi National Police of sexual assault. At least nine Iraqi organizations as well as Amnesty International, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq and the Brussels Tribunal have documented the sexualized torture of Iraqi women while in police custody. These include Women’s Will, Occupation Watch, the Women’s Rights Association , the Iraqi League, the Iraqi National Association of Human Rights, the Human Rights’ Voice of Freedom, the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Iraqi National Media and Culture Organization.
According to Iraqi human rights advocate and writer Haifa Zangana, the first question asked of female detainees in Iraq is, “Are you Sunni or Shia?” The second is, “Are you a virgin?”
Next week, MADRE , an international women’s human rights organization, will release a report that documents the widespread use of rape and other forms of torture against female detainees in Iraq by U.S. and Iraqi forces. The report includes testimonies collected by the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) of numerous rape survivors. Since November 2005, OWFI has conducted a Women’s Prison Watch project and has found that “torture and rape are common procedure of investigation in police stations run by the militias affiliated with the government, mostly the Mahdi and Badr militias,” according to their summer 2006 report.
These are the same sectarian Shiite militias that have been prosecuting Iraq’s civil war, the same militias that stepped into the power vacuum created by the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and the same militias that have been systematically attacking Iraqi women in their bid to establish an Islamist theocracy. As the occupying power in Iraq, the U.S. was obligated under the Geneva Conventions to provide security to Iraqi civilians, including protection from sex-based violence. But the U.S. military, preoccupied with battling the Iraqi insurgency, simply ignored the reign of terror that Islamist militias were imposing on women, including a campaign of assassinations, rapes, acid attacks and public beatings targeting women perceived to pose a challenge to the project of turning Iraq into a theocracy.
By 2005, the U.S. was actively aiding the militias. As the “cakewalk” envisioned by U.S. war planners quickly devolved into the quagmire is the Iraq War, the U.S. began to cultivate Shiite militias to help battle the Sunni-led insurgency. According to Newsweek, the plan was dubbed the “Salvador Option,” recalling the use of militias by the U.S. to bolster right-wing regimes in 1980s Central America. Today, the Mahdi Army controls the police forces of Baghdad and Basra , Iraq’s two largest cities. The Badr Brigade is headquartered in Iraq’s Ministry of Interior, which directs the country’s police, intelligence and paramilitary units. And the United Nations special investigator on torture is reporting that torture in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam Hussein.
It’s no surprise that we’re hearing allegations of rape against the Iraqi National Police, considering who trained them. DynCorp, the private contractor that the Bush Administration hired to prepare Iraq’s new police force for duty, has an ugly record of violence against women. The company was contracted by the federal government in the 1990s to train police in the Balkans. Human Rights Watch reports that DynCorp employees were found to have systematically committed sex crimes against women, including “owning” young women as slaves . One DynCorp site supervisor videotaped himself raping two women. Despite evidence, the contractors never faced criminal charges.
Contrary to its rhetoric and its international legal obligations, the Bush Administration has refused to protect women’s rights in Iraq. In fact, it has decisively traded women’s rights for cooperation from the Islamists it has helped boost to power. Torture of women in detention is one symptom of this broader crisis.
Monday, February 12, 2007
New Post
For something new for my readers I decided to try a new post. I have started the job as a mother's helper. The two youngest girls both like me, but I have yet to meet the older kids. Maybe tomorrow. Nick and I are still looking at a bunch of travel guides. Newest one is from Alaska. VERY fantastic places to visit. Sadly (well, for male cats everywhere) Sophie, my kitten, will be getting "fixed" on Friday. I will be visiting my little honorary niece Nora soon - very soon! And my real, biological niece very soon as well...hopefully this week but if not, 2-3 weeks after this. I'm reading a lot, but have almost decided what to do about my master's and it's not finishing it up at WSU. Still applying for a teacher's certificate program at UofI, but now I'm a bit nervous - what if I make a horrible teacher?! What if I can't teach!? All sorts of nerves and doubts are coming to the surface. Well, all. Have a good week.
Oh, and it's snowing, snowing, snowing!!!
Oh, and it's snowing, snowing, snowing!!!
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Well, I got the job as a mother's helper and I'm quite excited. Plus, I'm getting more hours at the Children's Place as well, so I might actually have some savings built up soon. Yay for having some reliable income. I just wish there was more there. But we can't all be Vanderbilts. Kristi and Andrew had their baby - congratulations! I presume Sara, Brad, and Nora are doing well - congratulations again! I read an interesting article in the New York Times today about a serial killer in South Bend, Indiana. So far, four homeless men were victims. But my friends who live there should still be careful! There's a rally in Des Moines next week organized by Planned Parenthood, while the state legislature votes on comprehensive sex education in school. I wish I could go and rally around the effort, but unfortunately I can't because I missed the deadline. I still responded via email and letter, but I think it'd be fun to be part of the action. I talk big, but too often can't act big because of work commitments or time and/or distant restraints. That's all the news for now; except to say: one of my new well-read authors is Jane Green and I think all my female friends should read her; quite hilarious, modern chick lit.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sex Crimes and the Vatican
| So sad. And makes me glad I don't identify with the Catholic Church any longer. Investigation into allegations that a secret church directive, issued by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI, is being used to silence the victims of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests. Colm O'Gorman, who was raped as a 14-year-old boy by his local parish priest in Ireland, travels to America, Brazil and the Vatican City to uncover more. | |
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wish me luck
Well all, I have applied for a 20 hour a week position as a nanny! It's good pay, and I love kids. Plus, I can still keep my other job at Children's Place most of the week. Please, wish me luck because this would really help me out and I think I would really love this job. I hope. Also, I have to provide very good references, so anybody who knows my experience and expertise with children please, send a letter or something to my email and I'll print it out. Wish me luck!
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Fun
Well, I don't know how many people actually read my list, since I really didn't get a response to any of my reasons. BUT, that's neither here nor there. I get my niece Kaylin this weekend. YAY! And today I've decided to begin a winter/wish it were spring cleaning of the apartment. Shouldn't be hard, considering that Nick and I are fairly neat. But, I am having a guest this weekend, even if it's just a six-year old who probably doesn't care. For some fun information about my life right now:
1. I have purple and pink nail polish on - Kaylin did it last Friday and they're quite sparkly and fun.
2. Nick and I are looking at brochures for cruises. We're quite interested in a few: Alaska, there's one that's a Mediterranean one, Greece, Turkey and the Greek Isles, and one that goes to Scandinavia and Russia.
3. My best friend Sara had baby Nora on Friday! That's technically not about MY life, but I'm excited and didn't mention it in my last post so I'm mentioning it now. Congratulations Sara and Brad!!!!
4. I've been working out, and I know that my arms are getting stronger because they hurt! Apparently I have weak, girly arms.
5. Sophie is still cute! And Leo is driving me crazy! And Casper is still sweet.
Okay, nothing too exciting. But I think it's fun news.
1. I have purple and pink nail polish on - Kaylin did it last Friday and they're quite sparkly and fun.
2. Nick and I are looking at brochures for cruises. We're quite interested in a few: Alaska, there's one that's a Mediterranean one, Greece, Turkey and the Greek Isles, and one that goes to Scandinavia and Russia.
3. My best friend Sara had baby Nora on Friday! That's technically not about MY life, but I'm excited and didn't mention it in my last post so I'm mentioning it now. Congratulations Sara and Brad!!!!
4. I've been working out, and I know that my arms are getting stronger because they hurt! Apparently I have weak, girly arms.
5. Sophie is still cute! And Leo is driving me crazy! And Casper is still sweet.
Okay, nothing too exciting. But I think it's fun news.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Anniversary of Roe v. Wade - Why I am Pro-Choice
In honor of the anniversary of the landmark case, Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to decide whether or not to continue with an unwanted/surprise pregnancy, I decided to follow thousands upon thousands of people and explain WHY I am pro-choice. Notice, I am merely explaining my views, and hoping that, if you are pro-life you'll 1) Read them, cause that's a major challenge. And 2) Read them. Like I said, it's a challenge, especially with long posts. Oh, and to add a quote that I'm just really liking right now: "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"
I am pro-choice because I believe women’s lives matter.
I am pro-choice because I think women themselves are the best people to decide when and if they get pregnant, give birth, and raise children.
I am pro-choice because I believe that the right to control your own reproduction is a fundamental right, and is protected both under our Constitution and basic human rights ideals — and I believe that fundamental right includes the right to prevent pregnancy, the right to get pregnant, the right to carry a pregnancy to term, and the right to terminate a pregnancy.
I am pro-choice because I believe that if we outlaw a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, there is no legal argument against forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy, or disallowing certain people from reproducing.
I am pro-choice because I do not believe that anyone should be subject totalitarian laws which impose unwanted occupations on certain classes of people.
I am pro-choice because I don’t believe that women should be legally compelled to maintain another life at the expense of her own wishes, her body, her health, or even her life.
I am pro-choice because I don’t believe that women’s bodies should be used against our will.
I am pro-choice because I believe that compulsory pregnancy and childbirth is immoral, cruel, and flies in the face of basic notions of freedom, liberty, and human rights.
I am pro-choice because I believe that forcing women to carry pregnancies against their will is involuntary servitude.
I am pro-choice because I believe that children should be wanted, their entrances into the world joyous occasions — that they should never be considered punishment.
I am pro-choice because I want women to be physically and emotionally healthy.
I am pro-choice because I don’t believe that pregnancy should be a punishment (or, as anti-choicers say, a “consequence”) of sex.
I am pro-choice because I realize that my rights to birth control, to have children, to make my own decisions, to be a fully autonomous human being all hinge on my very basic ability to decide when and if I reproduce.
I am pro-choice because I trust women!
I am pro-choice because reproductive rights are FAR MORE than abortion, and because I want to see us live in a true culture of life — one where men, women and children are truly valued, and where pregnancy doesn’t turn a woman into a second-class citizen.
I am pro-choice because those who attack abortion rights don’t plan on stopping there — they’re also going after contraception, science and even sex itself. And they’ve got a whole lot of political capital.
I am pro-choice because I see what places look like when “pro-life” policies are the rule of law. I see it again and again and again.
I am pro-choice because I see what places look like when abortion is safe, legal and available, contraception is accessible, and sex is considered natural, normal, and something we should take responsibility for, not be ashamed of.
I am pro-choice because “pro-life” policies kill and maim women. I am pro-choice because abortion rates are no higher in countries where abortion is legal than in countries where it is outlawed — but countries where abortion is legal see lower maternal mortality rates, lower infant mortality rates, greater economic prosperity, and greater gender equality.
I am pro-choice because women who live in the developing world account for 95 percent of the world’s illegal abortions, and I believe that access to safe health care should not be contingent on where you happened to be born.
I am pro-choice because the countries with the LOWEST abortion rates — Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland — have liberal abortion laws, good health care, comprehensive sex education, and accessible and affordable contraception.
I am pro-choice because many countries where abortion is illegal or highly restricted have significantly higher abortion rates than we have in the United States, and astronomically higher rates than we see in Western Europe. Some of those countries include Brazil, Chile, Bangladesh, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, and the Philippines.
I am pro-choice because of the number of women hospitalized after unsafe illegal abortions in these countries:
Bangladesh: 71,800
Brazil: 288,700
Chile: 31,900
Colombia: 57,700
Dominican Republic: 16,500
Egypt: 216,000
Mexico: 106,500
Nigeria: 142,200
Peru: 54,200
The Philippines: 80,100
I am pro-choice because 80,000 women die every year from complications from illegal abortion, and hundreds of thousands more are injured.
I am pro-choice because the risk of dying from abortion is far higher in countries where abortion is illegal than where it’s legal.
I am pro-choice because illegal abortion is the cause of 25% of all maternal deaths in Latin America, 12% in Asia, and 13% in sub-Saharan Africa.
I am pro-choice because I will not go back.
I am pro-choice because if Roe is overturned, abortion will be illegal in many states. Even with Roe in place, states like Georgia are considering legislation which would impose life in prison or the death penalty as punishment for women who have abortions and doctors who perform the procedures.
I am pro-choice because I don’t believe we should criminalize women and doctors for exercising reproductive freedom.
I am pro-choice because seeing the impact of abortion rights on a country’s prosperity, gender equality and overall well-being is apparent simply by looking at a map.
I am pro-choice because it’s the pro-choice movement that has advocated for policies which actually decrease the need for abortion, and which make it easier for women to have children: comprehensive sexual health education, affordable and accessible contraception (including emergency contraception), pre-natal and well-baby care, social support for pregnant women and women with children, affordable child care, fair pay for working women, supporting pregnant girls, and gender equality. Comparatively, the “pro-life” movement* has no interest in actually lowering the abortion rate; their ultimate goal is sexual control of women, evidenced by their opposition to contraception and their belief that there is only one singular way to live: abstain from sex until heterosexual marriage, and then have as many children as God gives you.
I am pro-choice because I see the positive impact that the pro-choice movement has had in the United States. Women go to college at the same rates as men. We can define ourselves as something other than mothers, or as mothers and something else. Or as mothers primarily. Poverty has been cut in half since Roe gave women the right to control their own reproduction. Men can be nurturing too, and are expected to take part in raising their children. Families can be planned. Men have greater choices in their occupations since they aren’t required to be the sole bread-winner. More people have access to education. Women have more power to escape abusive relationships or bad jobs. Parents of both sexes spend more time with their kids than ever before.
I am pro-choice because I care about children- I LOVE children and can't wait to have some (but those some are a number I decide and that I can support and provide for with everything — and according to the Children’s Defense Fund, 100% of the worst legislators for children in this country are pro-life.
I am pro-choice because I believe that my body is mine. I want women, girls, men, and children to be healthy, valued, and cared for. I want families to be healthy.
I want to live in a country that values the lives and well-being of all of its citizens.
I am pro-choice because it is life-affirming. I am pro-choice because it is fundamentally just. I am pro-choice because to be anything else is to devalue and harm women, children, families, and my country.
I am pro-choice because my life is worth something.
Happy Roe day.
*By which I mean the fanatical leaders of anti-choice organizations, not the individual people who identify as “pro-life” to mean that they dislike abortion and want to see the abortion rate decreased, but also support common-sense policies like sex education and contraception.
I am pro-choice because I believe women’s lives matter.
I am pro-choice because I think women themselves are the best people to decide when and if they get pregnant, give birth, and raise children.
I am pro-choice because I believe that the right to control your own reproduction is a fundamental right, and is protected both under our Constitution and basic human rights ideals — and I believe that fundamental right includes the right to prevent pregnancy, the right to get pregnant, the right to carry a pregnancy to term, and the right to terminate a pregnancy.
I am pro-choice because I believe that if we outlaw a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, there is no legal argument against forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy, or disallowing certain people from reproducing.
I am pro-choice because I do not believe that anyone should be subject totalitarian laws which impose unwanted occupations on certain classes of people.
I am pro-choice because I don’t believe that women should be legally compelled to maintain another life at the expense of her own wishes, her body, her health, or even her life.
I am pro-choice because I don’t believe that women’s bodies should be used against our will.
I am pro-choice because I believe that compulsory pregnancy and childbirth is immoral, cruel, and flies in the face of basic notions of freedom, liberty, and human rights.
I am pro-choice because I believe that forcing women to carry pregnancies against their will is involuntary servitude.
I am pro-choice because I believe that children should be wanted, their entrances into the world joyous occasions — that they should never be considered punishment.
I am pro-choice because I want women to be physically and emotionally healthy.
I am pro-choice because I don’t believe that pregnancy should be a punishment (or, as anti-choicers say, a “consequence”) of sex.
I am pro-choice because I realize that my rights to birth control, to have children, to make my own decisions, to be a fully autonomous human being all hinge on my very basic ability to decide when and if I reproduce.
I am pro-choice because I trust women!
I am pro-choice because reproductive rights are FAR MORE than abortion, and because I want to see us live in a true culture of life — one where men, women and children are truly valued, and where pregnancy doesn’t turn a woman into a second-class citizen.
I am pro-choice because those who attack abortion rights don’t plan on stopping there — they’re also going after contraception, science and even sex itself. And they’ve got a whole lot of political capital.
I am pro-choice because I see what places look like when “pro-life” policies are the rule of law. I see it again and again and again.
I am pro-choice because I see what places look like when abortion is safe, legal and available, contraception is accessible, and sex is considered natural, normal, and something we should take responsibility for, not be ashamed of.
I am pro-choice because “pro-life” policies kill and maim women. I am pro-choice because abortion rates are no higher in countries where abortion is legal than in countries where it is outlawed — but countries where abortion is legal see lower maternal mortality rates, lower infant mortality rates, greater economic prosperity, and greater gender equality.
I am pro-choice because women who live in the developing world account for 95 percent of the world’s illegal abortions, and I believe that access to safe health care should not be contingent on where you happened to be born.
I am pro-choice because the countries with the LOWEST abortion rates — Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland — have liberal abortion laws, good health care, comprehensive sex education, and accessible and affordable contraception.
I am pro-choice because many countries where abortion is illegal or highly restricted have significantly higher abortion rates than we have in the United States, and astronomically higher rates than we see in Western Europe. Some of those countries include Brazil, Chile, Bangladesh, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, and the Philippines.
I am pro-choice because of the number of women hospitalized after unsafe illegal abortions in these countries:
Bangladesh: 71,800
Brazil: 288,700
Chile: 31,900
Colombia: 57,700
Dominican Republic: 16,500
Egypt: 216,000
Mexico: 106,500
Nigeria: 142,200
Peru: 54,200
The Philippines: 80,100
I am pro-choice because 80,000 women die every year from complications from illegal abortion, and hundreds of thousands more are injured.
I am pro-choice because the risk of dying from abortion is far higher in countries where abortion is illegal than where it’s legal.
I am pro-choice because illegal abortion is the cause of 25% of all maternal deaths in Latin America, 12% in Asia, and 13% in sub-Saharan Africa.
I am pro-choice because I will not go back.
I am pro-choice because if Roe is overturned, abortion will be illegal in many states. Even with Roe in place, states like Georgia are considering legislation which would impose life in prison or the death penalty as punishment for women who have abortions and doctors who perform the procedures.
I am pro-choice because I don’t believe we should criminalize women and doctors for exercising reproductive freedom.
I am pro-choice because seeing the impact of abortion rights on a country’s prosperity, gender equality and overall well-being is apparent simply by looking at a map.
I am pro-choice because it’s the pro-choice movement that has advocated for policies which actually decrease the need for abortion, and which make it easier for women to have children: comprehensive sexual health education, affordable and accessible contraception (including emergency contraception), pre-natal and well-baby care, social support for pregnant women and women with children, affordable child care, fair pay for working women, supporting pregnant girls, and gender equality. Comparatively, the “pro-life” movement* has no interest in actually lowering the abortion rate; their ultimate goal is sexual control of women, evidenced by their opposition to contraception and their belief that there is only one singular way to live: abstain from sex until heterosexual marriage, and then have as many children as God gives you.
I am pro-choice because I see the positive impact that the pro-choice movement has had in the United States. Women go to college at the same rates as men. We can define ourselves as something other than mothers, or as mothers and something else. Or as mothers primarily. Poverty has been cut in half since Roe gave women the right to control their own reproduction. Men can be nurturing too, and are expected to take part in raising their children. Families can be planned. Men have greater choices in their occupations since they aren’t required to be the sole bread-winner. More people have access to education. Women have more power to escape abusive relationships or bad jobs. Parents of both sexes spend more time with their kids than ever before.
I am pro-choice because I care about children- I LOVE children and can't wait to have some (but those some are a number I decide and that I can support and provide for with everything — and according to the Children’s Defense Fund, 100% of the worst legislators for children in this country are pro-life.
I am pro-choice because I believe that my body is mine. I want women, girls, men, and children to be healthy, valued, and cared for. I want families to be healthy.
I want to live in a country that values the lives and well-being of all of its citizens.
I am pro-choice because it is life-affirming. I am pro-choice because it is fundamentally just. I am pro-choice because to be anything else is to devalue and harm women, children, families, and my country.
I am pro-choice because my life is worth something.
Happy Roe day.
*By which I mean the fanatical leaders of anti-choice organizations, not the individual people who identify as “pro-life” to mean that they dislike abortion and want to see the abortion rate decreased, but also support common-sense policies like sex education and contraception.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Reading, Writing, and Working Out
I got new workout DVDs today so I am well on my way to having no excuse to not work out. No more it's too cold outside to run whines - I can now do Tae-Bo or Self cardio, or toning exercises in my living room. So yay, for come bikini and shorts season, and vacations with Nick, I will look all fit and toned and in shape and sexy! Plus, I'll be so much healthier! I've been doing a lot of reading and writing as well. Application stuff for the summer session, reading biographies, histories, current events, and of course, romances and novels. I was also excited because I got my brochures to Royal Caribbean cruise lines. Nick and I want to go to Alaska and they have a program where you do the cruise and take a train ride into the interior of Alaska to see Denali and other sites. Of course, the way things are looking we may have to wait awhile. But I'm excited. And of course, the job hunt continues. Keep wishing me luck! That's really all my news. I just wanted to share my excitement of getting those DVDs. And tonight is sad movie night: I'm watching the Bridges of Madison County for the first time. Luckily, Nick opened a new box of tissues today!
Friday, January 12, 2007
New Year Post
Well, it's been awhle since I've posted anything new. Not much has happened. I'm anxiously awaiting my surrogate niece - Sara and Brad's baby. I've been hoping to find a better paying job as well. Exciting news: my niece Kaylin turned six! Happy Birthday! And I get to have her stay with me for a weekend in a few weeks so I'm excited. I'm working on a book database so I can keep track of the books I have, and basically for later, when I have a house that has a room devoted only to books. A library of course - if that ever happens. And I'm reading a book on the history of abortion and the differences in opinion between pro-choice and anti-choice people. It's bery non-judgemental and unbiased so far, since I'm about halfway through I think it will remain that way. To put it in basic language, the author is writing about why each group has the viewpoint that it has. Very interesting, and I may write more about it later. It's a break from reading mainly one viewpoint or another - I usually try to read both so I can be fully informed. Sometimes it's difficult. Anyway, I plan on seeing one of my best friends in April and Nick and I are planning on a trip to Chicago to see the art museum, the aquarium, and then tour, hopefully - if the weather is nice and all - the Frank Lloyd Wright stuff there. I guess that's all for now. Not very interesting, but I'm hoping my life will get more exciting.
New Year Post
Well, it's been awhle since I've posted anything new. Not much has happened. I'm anxiously awaiting my surrogate niece - Sara and Brad's baby. I've been hoping to find a better paying job as well. Exciting news: my niece Kaylin turned six! Happy Birthday! And I get to have her stay with me for a weekend in a few weeks so I'm excited. I'm working on a book database so I can keep track of the books I have, and basically for later, when I have a house that has a room devoted only to books. A library of course - if that ever happens. And I'm reading a book on the history of abortion and the differences in opinion between pro-choice and anti-choice people. It's bery non-judgemental and unbiased so far, since I'm about halfway through I think it will remain that way. To put it in basic language, the author is writing about why each group has the viewpoint that it has. Very interesting, and I may write more about it later. It's a break from reading mainly one viewpoint or another - I usually try to read both so I can be fully informed. Sometimes it's difficult. Anyway, I plan on seeing one of my best friends in April and Nick and I are planning on a trip to Chicago to see the art museum, the aquarium, and then tour, hopefully - if the weather is nice and all - the Frank Lloyd Wright stuff there. I guess that's all for now. Not very interesting, but I'm hoping my life will get more exciting.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
A new blog post
Well, Christmas was good. Long drive of course, there to Kansas and back to Iowa. But it was a good vacation...got to see some old friends from Grad school and hang out a lot with family. Was a little sad that I missed seeing other old friends, but I suppose it happens. So far, the only thing I have planned for New Year's is hanging out and working. I volunteered to work on Thanksgiving and New Year's to have Christmas off. Not that it's a big deal, but I will be ready for the holidays to be over so I can get back to a normal schedule at work. Am thinking a lot about New Year's Resolutions and what I should focus on. But that's basically all. Did I mention that I joined the ACLU? Nick and I also joined NetFlix and are having a blast picking movies out. So far, I can't wait to get this documentary on a girl in Texas who challenges the abstinence-only sex education at her school to fight the immensely high rates of pregnancy that occurs as a result of it. Looks interesting. I'm also reading a book about the history of experts advice for women, you know, like doctors who advised women who were menstruating not to swim or to get out of bed (in the 1800s) because menstruation was a "disease," that kind of thing. I've only just started, but it's been fascinating so far. Well, I guess that's all. Hope everyone had a merry christmas and has a happy new year.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Life Update
Well, not too many things that are extremely exciting have happened in my life...but I did want to update since no one else has. My little baby cat Sophie has a stalker - our cat Leo is in love with her. Yesterday we found him trying to, ahem, show her how much he cares. He's been fixed, so technically he isn't a real man, but it was still disturbing, since Sophie is only three months old. We have a pedophile cat running around here, but Nick put the fear into him and he seems to have backed off and gone back to being her friend only! Some exciting news in my life: I am now a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I even have a fun decal sticker for my car. I was extremely excited to get my membership card today. Now, I feel like I'm not just mouthing off words that protect the Bill of Rights and those issues I find important, I am actually acting on them. Maybe once I have a more steady income and career I can even volunteer more than a few dollars and verbal support. I am going to get to see my sister and niece this week - I am quite excited, even if I haven't figured out what I want done to my hair. And, I get to be home for Christmas in two weeks. Soon, I will get to meet Sara and Brad's baby and hang out with some friends and in the summer I get to start taking classes to certify as a teacher. Today it feels like my life is on track. Just wanted to update all you guys and share my exciting news, my funny cat story, and my basic good feelings - oh, did I mention I also received a bunch of books I ordered too, so I have some great stuff to read! Life is great.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Christmas
Well, it's getting to be Christmas. I have a lot to look forward to during this season and for the new year. New people to meet, new things to learn. I have heard much about the consumerism and commercialism of this time of year. I have never really felt that it IS a time of too much of it. Maybe materialism and perfectionism : kids want more toys than their parents can afford, women want jewelry, men want cars, whatever and everyone strives to make things perfect for their friends, family, coworkers, whoever. But whenever I think of Christmas, my memories are never of what I got - at least not the first, most precious ones. They're of decorating the tree, baking cookies, having school parties and programs, even going to church. Many are of family memories and traditions. And I think if you polled all the people you knew, they would have similar memories. And that's why I never think of Christmas as a consumerism based holiday, no matter what people argue. Yes, stores advertise and decorate way too early. Yes, kids want want want. Yes, credit card bills go up. But that's what stores do - people rarely start their Christmas shopping at the time the stores start their decorations - people will buy their presents early, or at the last minute, or when they can get that last paycheck, etc. I don't think people should start griping about Christmas being spoiled by too much commercialism/consumerism, because Christmas is what you make it. Agree not to buy presents if you think that it will harm your relationships with your family and friends - but I doubt that any of you think that the presents are what harms. It's the pressure to buy many presents, though not necessarily the best or most perfect present for that particular person. And if people who gripe about consumerism, and spoiling children, and encouraging selfishness and materialism would just think about that, than maybe credit card bills would go down and they could stop griping and have fun with it. I think that at one time of the year, however, it's fun to shop for the people you love, and find that present - and it doesn't even have to be shopping - volunteer some time if you don't have or want to spend money - give free babysitting services, or massages, or just movie watching time. Spoil the people in your life because, even if you should be treating them special everyday, that just isn't possible in the hectic lives that we all live. So use this opportunity of the Season of Love and Giving, to treat them special. To show them, I always care but sometimes I can't show it. Maybe I'm rambling and this makes more sense in my head, but I am so tired of reading and hearing about the bad things of Christmas: I don't like it cause it's so commercial now, people are so materialistic. They're only that way because they agree to act that way. Ignore the stores - who cares if they decorate early. Make some laughing comment and then celebrate your Fourth of July (hahaha). If you're religious, celebrate in those kind of ways (go to Mass more? Pray more? I don't know what do religious people do Kristi?) If you're not, celebrate this season as one where you can focus on giving of yourself, enjoying what others give you: presents or time, or love, or cookies, or whatever. And enjoy it as a family holiday if nothing else, something that pretty much forces you to look at your family in a different light, to spend time together. See, I'm an optimist and a Christmas lover. So stop bashing Christmas people!
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Disappointment and Me
Well, on a sort of side note to my tribute to Sara - who is one of my closest friends - I have decided to branch out and talk about why I don't like to talk about personal things, private things, and yet at the same time, really wish that I would call my best friends, or sisters just to talk about everything and nothing, or about a problem I'm having.
I actually figured out that I have this problem with revealing personal, private things about myself to those I really care about - whether it's cause I'm upset with them for some reason, or something I've done or not done, etc. And this all came to a head during the time of my marriage and divorce with Adam. I am desperately afraid to disappoint my family and friends. Deep down, I think, I really believe that I am not worthy to be part of their family cause I'm different and weird, or their friend - that if I do something disappointing, or make a big mistake, then I will be dumped. I have no clue why this is. I am a little better now, because of Kay and Sara and others support during my divorce even though I didn't really tell them about my marriage. Because they supported me without knowing the details I believed that disappointing as my divorce was, they still loved me, cared about my happiness, and in general, was unconditional in giving that love and support.
In some cases, my hopes that I would be supported without question failed. In that regard, my feelings of disappointing them = getting dumped, kinda came true. So I ended up telling those people less, and less. I do not want to tell them much about my life, or Nick, or my decisions, for fear that they will not 1 - like my decisions and 2 - hate me for it. Case in point - I am very far from writing my thesis - I have research material, I have the ability, but after last year, and the stress, for some reason, my motivation and my ability to sit down and study and write have diminished. I know some of it is lack of confidence. That came from Adam and the subsequent events with him and my family. The other is my wavering. I want my master's degree, but I want it for me, not for anyone else, and therefore I resist doing it until I'm sure it's for me and not just because my dad thinks I should finish or he helped pay, or people think it will be a waste.
Lately, I feel that this is the way life is - you make decisions, people support or not, you live your life, etc. But my growth in this area is stunted because I care so much about what my family thinks, regardless of my happiness, ideas, or thoughts. I stayed engaged (despite my misgivings and even giving back the ring once and ending the engagement) because I didn't want to disappoint anyone, because we'd already planned so much, and because I wasn't sure that it wasn't just nerves - I didn't feel that I could go to anyone, describe what i was feeling and getting support for the decision I wanted to make - to end it, because I could imagine that they would say it was just jitters.
I tried to stay with Adam, with all the hurt, stress, and bad and good times that entailed. I will not go into details. There were good times, but they got cancelled out. When I made my decision, I tried to go to the people I cared about. But he had gone there first, knowing that I can't bear to disappoint them, knowing they were big factors in my decisions and my life. I could no longer trust that they were there for me. I heard more advice about staying - and all of the things said were those I'd said. And all of them were exactly what Adam had said they would say. I felt trapped.
If it hadn't been for some very good friends -Kay, Sara, Nick, Autumn, my sisters Judy and Jackie - I might be still in that place, in danger, unhappy, trapped, and hurt. They didn't care what Adam said, they wanted to listen to me, even though I could barely describe it. So thanks for that people!
BUT...I disappointed so many others and still feel guilty, even though my decision was the best one I could make. My ways to go about it were disappointing, but I feel that things would have been better if I had had some local, hands-on support. And on that note I will ask one favor of those who know me and have been a part of my life: any pictures you have of me as a child or teenager, with any of you, with my family, with my mom, of just my mom, or my dad, or my family, could you send me some copies. I ran for my life from Adam and he destroyed my keepsakes and the things I kept to make sure I could remember. So, that's my Christmas wish - to get some of it back. And if you would like to write to Adam and yell on my behalf...I'll give you the number or address :-)
I actually figured out that I have this problem with revealing personal, private things about myself to those I really care about - whether it's cause I'm upset with them for some reason, or something I've done or not done, etc. And this all came to a head during the time of my marriage and divorce with Adam. I am desperately afraid to disappoint my family and friends. Deep down, I think, I really believe that I am not worthy to be part of their family cause I'm different and weird, or their friend - that if I do something disappointing, or make a big mistake, then I will be dumped. I have no clue why this is. I am a little better now, because of Kay and Sara and others support during my divorce even though I didn't really tell them about my marriage. Because they supported me without knowing the details I believed that disappointing as my divorce was, they still loved me, cared about my happiness, and in general, was unconditional in giving that love and support.
In some cases, my hopes that I would be supported without question failed. In that regard, my feelings of disappointing them = getting dumped, kinda came true. So I ended up telling those people less, and less. I do not want to tell them much about my life, or Nick, or my decisions, for fear that they will not 1 - like my decisions and 2 - hate me for it. Case in point - I am very far from writing my thesis - I have research material, I have the ability, but after last year, and the stress, for some reason, my motivation and my ability to sit down and study and write have diminished. I know some of it is lack of confidence. That came from Adam and the subsequent events with him and my family. The other is my wavering. I want my master's degree, but I want it for me, not for anyone else, and therefore I resist doing it until I'm sure it's for me and not just because my dad thinks I should finish or he helped pay, or people think it will be a waste.
Lately, I feel that this is the way life is - you make decisions, people support or not, you live your life, etc. But my growth in this area is stunted because I care so much about what my family thinks, regardless of my happiness, ideas, or thoughts. I stayed engaged (despite my misgivings and even giving back the ring once and ending the engagement) because I didn't want to disappoint anyone, because we'd already planned so much, and because I wasn't sure that it wasn't just nerves - I didn't feel that I could go to anyone, describe what i was feeling and getting support for the decision I wanted to make - to end it, because I could imagine that they would say it was just jitters.
I tried to stay with Adam, with all the hurt, stress, and bad and good times that entailed. I will not go into details. There were good times, but they got cancelled out. When I made my decision, I tried to go to the people I cared about. But he had gone there first, knowing that I can't bear to disappoint them, knowing they were big factors in my decisions and my life. I could no longer trust that they were there for me. I heard more advice about staying - and all of the things said were those I'd said. And all of them were exactly what Adam had said they would say. I felt trapped.
If it hadn't been for some very good friends -Kay, Sara, Nick, Autumn, my sisters Judy and Jackie - I might be still in that place, in danger, unhappy, trapped, and hurt. They didn't care what Adam said, they wanted to listen to me, even though I could barely describe it. So thanks for that people!
BUT...I disappointed so many others and still feel guilty, even though my decision was the best one I could make. My ways to go about it were disappointing, but I feel that things would have been better if I had had some local, hands-on support. And on that note I will ask one favor of those who know me and have been a part of my life: any pictures you have of me as a child or teenager, with any of you, with my family, with my mom, of just my mom, or my dad, or my family, could you send me some copies. I ran for my life from Adam and he destroyed my keepsakes and the things I kept to make sure I could remember. So, that's my Christmas wish - to get some of it back. And if you would like to write to Adam and yell on my behalf...I'll give you the number or address :-)
Monday, November 27, 2006
A Tribute to Sara
The other day I talked to my friend Sara, who is due with my surrogate niece in January. I realized that she is going to be a mom. Yes, I realize that women who are pregnant become them, but it didn't really hit home until I talked to her. And so I wanted to post about how great a mom she is going to be. Not a mother - mothers are the people who are supposed to be revered automatically, no matter how great a person she is. Anyone can be a mother - just get a girl pregnant, wait 9 months and voila!
But a mom is different. A mom is the one you come to when you are hurt; a mom is someone who will give you memories (and don't get all bent out of shape dads, I'm just focusing on stuff moms do, not one stuff dads don't do, the same stuff I"m talking about applies to dads as well, not fathers - those are priests and in my opinion, anyone who wants his children to call him father is someone I picture as being a patriarchal, sexist, religiously overbearing person who also uses a belt for discipline - I am of course over generalizing and losing sight of my point) anyway, a mom.
A mom is someone who helps you make a fort with blankets in the living room, buys you your first bra, tells you honestly about periods (I'm focusing on girls as Sara is having a girl) and giggles with you about your first crush. She is also the one who loves you, even when you yell at her to stay out of your life - because now you're a teenager. The one who resents the curfew she feels you need, but understands when you need to break it - prom! A real mom is someone who totally disapproves of your decisions -to have sex maybe, before you're married - but she'll help you get birth control; a real mom is one who will be there for you when your first boyfriend and you break up - with cookie dough. She is one who will punish you when she needs to, and explains why. And I could go on, and on.
And Sara is going to be a great mom! She's going to be a great mom for a lot of the reasons that some people will say she's not - she's going to work to help provide for her family - she can't stay at home. And that makes her a good mom, because it shows that she can face reality, and work hard, and do the things that she has to do - and she's not injuring her family based on ideas of what family is "supposed to be." She's going to be a part of a real family, in real life, with all the problems and uniqueness that is wonderful in life. She's going to teach her kids about tolerance toward other people - homosexuals, pro-choice people (hey, Sara still loves me, and I hope, sorta understands me on this issue). She will give her child all the good things about religion - the good feeling that going to church can give, because it's steady, a tradition that provides good memories (I hope) for later, because you can sing there, even if you may not fully believe the words. She will be the mom that may be tired from work, but will still play tea party, or Star Trek, or watch March of the Penguins. Sara will be a good mom not because her religions tells her she has to, to fulfill her marriage vows or to propogate for future church members, but because she wants to and loves kids. She is a good mom already because of the person she married, one who is also tolerant, and loving, and cares about people. So, a tribute to Sara, who is going to be a great mom in a month or so, due dates being the inexact science that they are. I love you!
But a mom is different. A mom is the one you come to when you are hurt; a mom is someone who will give you memories (and don't get all bent out of shape dads, I'm just focusing on stuff moms do, not one stuff dads don't do, the same stuff I"m talking about applies to dads as well, not fathers - those are priests and in my opinion, anyone who wants his children to call him father is someone I picture as being a patriarchal, sexist, religiously overbearing person who also uses a belt for discipline - I am of course over generalizing and losing sight of my point) anyway, a mom.
A mom is someone who helps you make a fort with blankets in the living room, buys you your first bra, tells you honestly about periods (I'm focusing on girls as Sara is having a girl) and giggles with you about your first crush. She is also the one who loves you, even when you yell at her to stay out of your life - because now you're a teenager. The one who resents the curfew she feels you need, but understands when you need to break it - prom! A real mom is someone who totally disapproves of your decisions -to have sex maybe, before you're married - but she'll help you get birth control; a real mom is one who will be there for you when your first boyfriend and you break up - with cookie dough. She is one who will punish you when she needs to, and explains why. And I could go on, and on.
And Sara is going to be a great mom! She's going to be a great mom for a lot of the reasons that some people will say she's not - she's going to work to help provide for her family - she can't stay at home. And that makes her a good mom, because it shows that she can face reality, and work hard, and do the things that she has to do - and she's not injuring her family based on ideas of what family is "supposed to be." She's going to be a part of a real family, in real life, with all the problems and uniqueness that is wonderful in life. She's going to teach her kids about tolerance toward other people - homosexuals, pro-choice people (hey, Sara still loves me, and I hope, sorta understands me on this issue). She will give her child all the good things about religion - the good feeling that going to church can give, because it's steady, a tradition that provides good memories (I hope) for later, because you can sing there, even if you may not fully believe the words. She will be the mom that may be tired from work, but will still play tea party, or Star Trek, or watch March of the Penguins. Sara will be a good mom not because her religions tells her she has to, to fulfill her marriage vows or to propogate for future church members, but because she wants to and loves kids. She is a good mom already because of the person she married, one who is also tolerant, and loving, and cares about people. So, a tribute to Sara, who is going to be a great mom in a month or so, due dates being the inexact science that they are. I love you!
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Meet Sophie
Meet Sophie, our new kitten! Isn't she adorable!? So far, Leo likes her and Casper is unsure. We'll have to wait and see how they all get along. But I'm optimistic. She's very curious and explores everything.
/Users/nnwmb/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Originals/2006/Roll 2/100_0496.JPG
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Books
Well, I figured it was time for an update, one that doesn't have a very controversial topic. At least, I hope not. It's about books. I have been crazy lately, buying books: romance, fiction, literature (like the classics, such as King Solomon's Mine) and current events. I have been reading satire, Harlequin, drama, and mystery. This is of course, in between my insane schedule at work - every weekend. 8 hour days. On my feet. Smiling. For 8 hours. It's impossible to smile for 8 hours, continuously. Eventually, you have to just frown at something. But the babies are cute. Anyway, what are you all reading? Anything? Everything? Any good, new authors that you just have to tell someone about?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
WAHOO!!!
Yes! I am so excited! I know that the Democrat Controlled House and Senate (well, after recounts) won't make immediate changes but I am so excited to now that I voted and voter turnout was up (at least here) and we all want change. Some kind of change - whether in Iraq, or about stem cell research (way to go Missouri!) or abortion or whatever. Democrats have, to me at least, proven that they are the party of the people - the people wanted them. Even Jim Ryun in Kansas lost. And now the first woman Speaker of the House! Can you hear my heart racing with excitement! Okay anyway. Good job voters, even those of you who voted against the Dems, voting is awesome.
I know some of my readers will disagree with my enthusiasm. But, I just can't help it. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! South Dakota has repealed the abortion ban! They repealed it! They repealed it! Women will remain in control.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 7, 2006
South Dakotans Stand Up for Freedom and Privacy, Repeal Divisive Abortion Ban
Vote in conservative stronghold a major defeat for anti-choice groups
Washington, DC –Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Casey Murschel, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, praised South Dakota voters' rejection of Referred Law 6, a near total ban on abortion.
"Tonight's victory belongs to the people of South Dakota who fought back against this political intrusion into personal, private decisions," Keenan said. "South Dakotans reaffirmed that the right to choose should be between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God—not legislators or Gov. Mike Rounds. This result is a triumph for the fundamental values of freedom and privacy over divisive attacks against a woman's right to choose. This is a wake-up call to lawmakers in other states that America's pro-choice majority will not allow an assault on Roe v. Wade to go unanswered."
Murschel, a Republican legislator who led opposition to the ban, said, "Now, it is time for the same South Dakotans—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—who defeated this ban to call on legislators and the governor to end these attacks and unify behind commonsense ways to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion, without threatening women's health or jeopardizing access to safe, legal abortion."
The victory in South Dakota represents part of NARAL Pro-Choice America's comprehensive $2.5 million political program that contributed to this ballot measure in South Dakota and congressional races across the country. NARAL Pro-Choice America joined its state affiliate, NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota as early leaders in a state-based coalition formed to fight this ban, providing significant financial and organizational resources and mobilizing a network of nearly 1,000 activists in the state. Further, NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota invited Keenan to the state, where she met with pro-choice leaders and offered considerable support early on in the effort to place this measure on the ballot.
Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032
I know some of my readers will disagree with my enthusiasm. But, I just can't help it. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! South Dakota has repealed the abortion ban! They repealed it! They repealed it! Women will remain in control.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 7, 2006
South Dakotans Stand Up for Freedom and Privacy, Repeal Divisive Abortion Ban
Vote in conservative stronghold a major defeat for anti-choice groups
Washington, DC –Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Casey Murschel, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, praised South Dakota voters' rejection of Referred Law 6, a near total ban on abortion.
"Tonight's victory belongs to the people of South Dakota who fought back against this political intrusion into personal, private decisions," Keenan said. "South Dakotans reaffirmed that the right to choose should be between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God—not legislators or Gov. Mike Rounds. This result is a triumph for the fundamental values of freedom and privacy over divisive attacks against a woman's right to choose. This is a wake-up call to lawmakers in other states that America's pro-choice majority will not allow an assault on Roe v. Wade to go unanswered."
Murschel, a Republican legislator who led opposition to the ban, said, "Now, it is time for the same South Dakotans—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—who defeated this ban to call on legislators and the governor to end these attacks and unify behind commonsense ways to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion, without threatening women's health or jeopardizing access to safe, legal abortion."
The victory in South Dakota represents part of NARAL Pro-Choice America's comprehensive $2.5 million political program that contributed to this ballot measure in South Dakota and congressional races across the country. NARAL Pro-Choice America joined its state affiliate, NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota as early leaders in a state-based coalition formed to fight this ban, providing significant financial and organizational resources and mobilizing a network of nearly 1,000 activists in the state. Further, NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota invited Keenan to the state, where she met with pro-choice leaders and offered considerable support early on in the effort to place this measure on the ballot.
Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032
Sunday, November 05, 2006
VOTE!
Alright people! On Tuesday I expect all of you to get your butts to the polls and vote. Vote Democrat! Vote Pro-choice! Vote Republican! Vote Pro-Life! Vote Independent! Vote Nazism! (Okay, maybe not) but get out there and vote. The polls open at 7 and close at 8, at least here in Iowa they do, so go early, before work or school. Or go later, after work or school. Or go during your lunch break. Just get out there and vote and make the United States one of those countries that has a high voting record - I mean, even Iran and Iraq has better voter turnout! So get out there and yell at those politicians. Tell them they have to listen to us! Vote! Vote! Vote!
Oh, yeah, personal endorsement - vote Democrat and pro-choice. Get those Republicans out of Congress and out of our private health decisions.
Oh, yeah, personal endorsement - vote Democrat and pro-choice. Get those Republicans out of Congress and out of our private health decisions.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
If I Had A Billion Dollars
I have been thinking lately of money. Well, a lot of it has been my lack of money, but sometimes I think of what I would do if I had plenty of money and didn't need to worry about how I'm going to pay for basic necessities. So, I've compiled a list. There is really no end to what I would like to do, but these are some of my top picks.
Drum Roll please (not that anyone actually cares about this list, though I'd love to read yours)
1. I would have accounts made for each of my nieces and nephews so that when they turn 18 they can go to the college of their choice (provided they're accepted of course) OR if they prefer to wait for college, they can volunteer at something like the Peace Corps and have that money waiting for them, able to withdraw it at will.
2. I would give some subscribed amount: $25,000 maybe to Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice, NOW, and Ms. magazine.
3. I would donate $50,000 to WSU for History scholarships and/or a history student's grant. I would allocate some of that money for book buying related to the social sciences to the WSU library.
4. I would give $75,000 to a therapy program for rape victims - they heal by swimming with dolphins!
5.I would start a new charity that builds houses for the poor and fixes up houses that are in urban areas - sort of Habitat for Humanity and Urban Renewal combined. These would be available to those who applied.
6. I would donate $150,000 to a fund for poor women to gain abortion and birth control. With the huge amount of money I am imagining I have, this would be renewed every year.
7. Okay, I have to get a bit selfish now. I would buy my dream house. Nothing necessarily huge or anything, but with everything I would want: a library, a large kitchen, fireplaces, a solarium or sun room, etc.
8. Hey, I said I was going to be selfish: a vacation home on the Atlantic coast, preferably Maine. It wouldn't be huge at all, just a 2 bedroom cabin type, right on the beach, with a huge fireplace and bookshelves everywhere.
9. A fund for open and honest sex education for any school or clinic that applies and international clinics as well, including AIDS education and prevention, and free birth control: maybe around $25,000 each or so? Stop the Vatican and Bush from the gag-rule and imposing their values on people that can't afford to go somewhere else for another opinion.
10. Another selfish thing: Books. I would buy every book I ever wanted; on my wish list from Amazon, whenver I found one I liked in any bookstore I went to. No end to buying of books (this is why I need a library).
11. A Toyota Prius and a Honda Element. Both are good cars...if the Element becomes a Hybrid that would make it even better.
Okay, I think I would consider these my top 11 or something. But again, I could come up with many more. Some are selfish, others not so much. I would love to hear about your lists if you have them.
Drum Roll please (not that anyone actually cares about this list, though I'd love to read yours)
1. I would have accounts made for each of my nieces and nephews so that when they turn 18 they can go to the college of their choice (provided they're accepted of course) OR if they prefer to wait for college, they can volunteer at something like the Peace Corps and have that money waiting for them, able to withdraw it at will.
2. I would give some subscribed amount: $25,000 maybe to Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice, NOW, and Ms. magazine.
3. I would donate $50,000 to WSU for History scholarships and/or a history student's grant. I would allocate some of that money for book buying related to the social sciences to the WSU library.
4. I would give $75,000 to a therapy program for rape victims - they heal by swimming with dolphins!
5.I would start a new charity that builds houses for the poor and fixes up houses that are in urban areas - sort of Habitat for Humanity and Urban Renewal combined. These would be available to those who applied.
6. I would donate $150,000 to a fund for poor women to gain abortion and birth control. With the huge amount of money I am imagining I have, this would be renewed every year.
7. Okay, I have to get a bit selfish now. I would buy my dream house. Nothing necessarily huge or anything, but with everything I would want: a library, a large kitchen, fireplaces, a solarium or sun room, etc.
8. Hey, I said I was going to be selfish: a vacation home on the Atlantic coast, preferably Maine. It wouldn't be huge at all, just a 2 bedroom cabin type, right on the beach, with a huge fireplace and bookshelves everywhere.
9. A fund for open and honest sex education for any school or clinic that applies and international clinics as well, including AIDS education and prevention, and free birth control: maybe around $25,000 each or so? Stop the Vatican and Bush from the gag-rule and imposing their values on people that can't afford to go somewhere else for another opinion.
10. Another selfish thing: Books. I would buy every book I ever wanted; on my wish list from Amazon, whenver I found one I liked in any bookstore I went to. No end to buying of books (this is why I need a library).
11. A Toyota Prius and a Honda Element. Both are good cars...if the Element becomes a Hybrid that would make it even better.
Okay, I think I would consider these my top 11 or something. But again, I could come up with many more. Some are selfish, others not so much. I would love to hear about your lists if you have them.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Update
Following in the footsteps of my good friend Sara, I have decided to give you all an update on my life. Please don't snore too loudly. This past weekend I traveled the eight hours down to Wichita and attended a wedding for my BF Nick's friends. A Catholic wedding, no less - meaning a lot longer than any other type. It felt weird to be in the church, but kinda neat because the priest that married the couple also married my brother and sister-in-law. Sometimes it's a small world. I did notice though that the vows still seem rather sexist to me: the groom promises to be faithful and to be a good father (no mention of being a good husband, I guess as long as he is a good dad and provider he can beat his wife or something.) The bride promises to be faithful as well, but to also be a good wife, AND mother. I feel sorry for those women who make this vow and then find out that they can't have children. Or don't want them - as it seems that the Catholic Church insists on having more members brought in from birth, and therefore you are not a good Catholic if you don't automatically desire children. But I digress into my cynicism and I apologize. This is for a later blog topic. I spent Saturday meeting my stepmother's family - her mother turned 90 and all of her kids came for the party and to visit. It was nice, though a bit long. Lots of good food and cute kids. I got to hold a baby! Trying to practice so I won't forget when Sara and Brad have little Kathleen and I get to hold her :-)I got to see my niece and nephews which was great, though way too short - my sister-in-law had the flu so I didn't spend a lot of time there; plus, my brother had just gotten back from a 2-week long work time in St. Louis - the kids hadn't seen him for a long time. But I did get to see their costumes. Dad and I got a chance to talk a bit. He's doing good, the house looks great and I can't wait until Christmas. Nick and I ate at Bella Luna, which is one of the restaurants we've been missing. Yum! I'm hungry just thinking about their menu. And then Sunday we headed back to Iowa - only to run into a good school friend of ours who was ALSO heading back to Iowa (thought a different city) and we stopped at Matfield Green and just chatted a bit. Quite fun! Oh, and Angie - thanks again for the squirrel! Today I spent the day running errands, doing laundry, and I actually got a good jog in also. It's nice to be home, no matter how much I miss my family. I guess that's pretty much it.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Friendship
I was thinking for the past couple of days about my group of friends from high school. Occasionally, we've talked about the so-called "popular crowd," who I think we all agreed were really only popular in their heads - really they were the party clique, the snobby clique, what have you. I think if any one in our group was popular it was Nathan B. Felix. He was truly universally liked. So kudos to you, Fe, cause you deserved it. But I was wondering a bit today why it is I am so much closer to certain friends from High School than others. Doubtless, some of it has to do with personality, sense of humor, shared characteristics, etc. But I have noticed that while I was close to a lot of these friends - at least I considered us close - in High School, I have become closer to some and have moved farther away from others. Do any of you find yourselves wondering what differences between your friends came between you? In response to an email I sent yesterday to a friend whom I considered myself to be close to in high school I have been thinking of these things even more. I had attempted to try to open up a discussion and re-forge some closeness. It didn't happen, perhaps because it can't happen anymore, or because I or that other person has changed too much to allow us to open up discussion and become close again. I know why I pulled away, but I do not know if I did anything to this person to make them pull away. In any case, I was disappointed that my attempt failed and that it was mistaken for something else. This is my fault, perhaps, because of what I wrote - how I wrote it, more precisely. Anyway, I would like some thoughts on this subject. Which friends are you still close to? Why? What changed? How have you changed? How have they changed?
On another note. I have been thinking as well that I have really focused a lot on abortion and religion.This is in response as well, to an old friend. But I would really like to get your input on some topics about me that all of you may be interested in hearing.
One and all, religions have their original prophets, their sacred books, their traditions of ages gone. One and all require us to accept without question what other people long dead have said or written; to obey without question the commands of those behind us.... No matter what the belief, if it had modestly said, "This is our best thought, go on, think farther!" then we could have smoothly outgrown our early errors and long since have developed a religion such as would have kept pace with an advancing world. But we were made to believe and not allowed to think. We were told to obey, rather than to experiment and investigate.
On another note. I have been thinking as well that I have really focused a lot on abortion and religion.This is in response as well, to an old friend. But I would really like to get your input on some topics about me that all of you may be interested in hearing.
One and all, religions have their original prophets, their sacred books, their traditions of ages gone. One and all require us to accept without question what other people long dead have said or written; to obey without question the commands of those behind us.... No matter what the belief, if it had modestly said, "This is our best thought, go on, think farther!" then we could have smoothly outgrown our early errors and long since have developed a religion such as would have kept pace with an advancing world. But we were made to believe and not allowed to think. We were told to obey, rather than to experiment and investigate.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Research and News
Not that any amount of research will actually get someone hell-bent on forcing women to complete their pregnancies to stop saying there is a connection. But I thought I'd post it anyway. And for those of you who are pro-life but actually keep an open mind, a non-judgemental attitude, and reasons for being against abortion OTHER than religious zeal, as well as some compassion, like Sara, that rather short statement above is not for you.
Back to Story - Help
Abortion does not increase breast cancer risk Mon Oct 16, 7:27 PM ET
Abortion does not affect the risk of breast cancer, according to study findings published in the International Journal of Cancer.
"It is well established that pregnancies that end in a full-term birth ultimately confer a protective effect on breast cancer risk," Dr. Gillian K. Reeves, of the University of Oxford, UK, and colleagues write. "The effect of incomplete pregnancies on the risk of breast cancer has been less clear."
The researchers therefore examined the role of abortion on breast cancer risk among 267,361 women enrolled in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition between 1992 and 2000. The data came from 20 centers across nine countries.
The women were followed for an average of 6.6 years. A total of 4805 women were diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up. The researchers included all pregnancies that ended prior to 20 weeks or the stage of viability - spontaneous abortions (also referred to as miscarriage) and therapeutic or induced abortions.
"Overall, almost two thirds of women reported never having had any type of abortion, while about one third reported having had at least one type of abortion," Reeves and colleagues report.
Approximately 20 percent reported having a spontaneous abortion compared with about 16 percent who reported having an induced abortion. Only 3.8 percent of women reported having both types of abortion.
Having one spontaneous abortion did not affect the risk of breast cancer and having two or more spontaneous abortions only slightly increased the risk. No evidence of a relationship between one or more induced abortions and breast cancer was found.
"Overall, the findings provide further unbiased evidence of the lack of an adverse effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk," the team concludes.
SOURCE: International Journal of Cancer, October 1, 2006.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Back to Story - Help
Abortion does not increase breast cancer risk Mon Oct 16, 7:27 PM ET
Abortion does not affect the risk of breast cancer, according to study findings published in the International Journal of Cancer.
"It is well established that pregnancies that end in a full-term birth ultimately confer a protective effect on breast cancer risk," Dr. Gillian K. Reeves, of the University of Oxford, UK, and colleagues write. "The effect of incomplete pregnancies on the risk of breast cancer has been less clear."
The researchers therefore examined the role of abortion on breast cancer risk among 267,361 women enrolled in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition between 1992 and 2000. The data came from 20 centers across nine countries.
The women were followed for an average of 6.6 years. A total of 4805 women were diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up. The researchers included all pregnancies that ended prior to 20 weeks or the stage of viability - spontaneous abortions (also referred to as miscarriage) and therapeutic or induced abortions.
"Overall, almost two thirds of women reported never having had any type of abortion, while about one third reported having had at least one type of abortion," Reeves and colleagues report.
Approximately 20 percent reported having a spontaneous abortion compared with about 16 percent who reported having an induced abortion. Only 3.8 percent of women reported having both types of abortion.
Having one spontaneous abortion did not affect the risk of breast cancer and having two or more spontaneous abortions only slightly increased the risk. No evidence of a relationship between one or more induced abortions and breast cancer was found.
"Overall, the findings provide further unbiased evidence of the lack of an adverse effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk," the team concludes.
SOURCE: International Journal of Cancer, October 1, 2006.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Monday, October 16, 2006
The Future Home of James T. Kirk
Yesterday, Nick and I headed to Kalona, Iowa because we'd heard that it's a big quilting town and I have been a little obsessed lately with finding a quilt similar, if not exactly like!, the one that my mom gave me years ago. Somehow, when she died and all the stuff was organized (which guiltily and sadly I didn't help with; some of that was because of major pain but I still should have helped!)it disappeared and I haven't figured out where it went. Maybe one of my aunts has it or something, so at least it's still in the family. Anyway, I digress. We drove through the town of Riverside and there it was. A sign proclaiming that it was the Future Home of James T. Kirk. I was so excited because even though I really don't like the original episodes of Star Trek or James T. Kirk, it was still a small string of connection to my Trekkie roots. For those of you who didn't know me in 7th-12th grade, and okay, beyond! I am a trekkie! I watched Star Trek: The Next Generation, and Voyager, and I well, I still have stories, etc. that I am involved with...it was a whole thing with me. So I was excited to see the future right here in Iowa - even if I didn't like the Star Trek captain in question, and wished that it were a sign in a small little wine-producing village in France and proclaiming instead, "Future Home of Captain Jean-Luc Picard"- It was exciting.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
I just finished reading a memoir by Julia Scheeres: Jesus Land. It was yet another reason I'm glad that I look at organized religion - especially Christianity - with a rather cynical eye. Her life was so sad; so incredibly unfair. I will not say that it was all caused by Christianity itself - that's just wrong. But most of her unhappiness and misery was caused by good "Christians," trying to "save her soul" and indoctrinate her on their views, despite her own. And, of course, being hypocritical and bigoted and mean about it. All of course, supported by the Bible. Supported at least, by their interpretation - because that's all the book can become in life is interpretation. Which is why I don't understand why people would choose to live "as the Bible says." Please. Sometimes I wonder if rational thought is even possible at that point. It certainly seems to be suspended whenever people start talking about god, or the Bible, or Jesus. They're as high on that as drugs - and it leads to some nasty behavior. Which is of course, sanctioned by the Bible. I just don't understand. Of course, the aftermath of reading a memoir like this is to heighten and intensify by utter bewilderment and cynicism and sheer gratitude that I'm NOT like them, that I may very well fall into the trap of labeling all people who claim to be Christian as mean, bigoted, horrible, hypocritical people. I know some Christians that are...and some (though they seem to be more of the secular Christians) are the best people around. Of course, the best people I've met, sadly for those of you who are that high on god type of Christian, aren't Christian at all. Food for thought isn't it? I guess adhering to the idea that just adhering to one book for one way of life is maybe, not the best policy to live a good life and be kind to others, etc. Just food for thought..mine anyway.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Just me
Sadly, I had to work; but I wanted to go to several - there were something like 10 held here or near hear (Iowa City/Coralville) and if I'd had the space I would have been a hostess too. But I applaud those who were able to attend and/or hold one. Good Luck South Dakota!
Activists Across the Nation Hold Potluck Fundraisers to Fight South Dakota Abortion Ban
Planned Parenthood Supporters Join Together to Combat Attacks on Women’s Health and Safety
Washington, DC — This weekend (Sept. 29–Oct.1) pro-choice activists across the United States, as well as in Kenya and Tunisia, will hold potluck fundraisers to fight South Dakota’s abortion ban. The potlucks, organized by Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), have touched a chord with people across the nation. To date, people determined to protect women’s health and safety have organized more than 300 potluck events in 38 states — from Belfast, ME, to Davenport, IA, to Arcata, CA. Potluck themes range from turkey fries to luaus, with events being held in churches and synagogues, backyards, parks, homes and sororities. Similar fundraisers are also being held to oppose anti-choice initiatives in California and Oregon.
“There has been a groundswell of support across the nation in reaction to this draconian measure, which would set women’s health back 33 years to the pre-Roe era,” said Stephenie Foster, PPFA vice president for public policy. “There could be no greater indication of how close we are to losing rights that many of us have come to take for granted than the ban passed in South Dakota.”
A statewide referendum to be held on November 7 will determine whether or not the law goes into effect. The ban — a blatant challenge to Roe v. Wade — would strip women in South Dakota of their constitutional right to determine if and when to bear children. It affects virtually all women seeking an abortion, with the sole exception of cases in which the woman will die if forced to continue the pregnancy.
To find out more about Potlucks for South Dakota, go to StandUpSD.com.
###
Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 860 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.
Activists Across the Nation Hold Potluck Fundraisers to Fight South Dakota Abortion Ban
Planned Parenthood Supporters Join Together to Combat Attacks on Women’s Health and Safety
Washington, DC — This weekend (Sept. 29–Oct.1) pro-choice activists across the United States, as well as in Kenya and Tunisia, will hold potluck fundraisers to fight South Dakota’s abortion ban. The potlucks, organized by Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), have touched a chord with people across the nation. To date, people determined to protect women’s health and safety have organized more than 300 potluck events in 38 states — from Belfast, ME, to Davenport, IA, to Arcata, CA. Potluck themes range from turkey fries to luaus, with events being held in churches and synagogues, backyards, parks, homes and sororities. Similar fundraisers are also being held to oppose anti-choice initiatives in California and Oregon.
“There has been a groundswell of support across the nation in reaction to this draconian measure, which would set women’s health back 33 years to the pre-Roe era,” said Stephenie Foster, PPFA vice president for public policy. “There could be no greater indication of how close we are to losing rights that many of us have come to take for granted than the ban passed in South Dakota.”
A statewide referendum to be held on November 7 will determine whether or not the law goes into effect. The ban — a blatant challenge to Roe v. Wade — would strip women in South Dakota of their constitutional right to determine if and when to bear children. It affects virtually all women seeking an abortion, with the sole exception of cases in which the woman will die if forced to continue the pregnancy.
To find out more about Potlucks for South Dakota, go to StandUpSD.com.
###
Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 860 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Prejudice and Bigotry
I just took a survey about prejudice and bigotry and it got me thinking: what areas in the United States and around the world need work? What is the most prevalent prejudice or bigotry? For example, I was torn between the idea that hetero-sexism and sexism in general, are the areas of prejudice that are still the most prevalent. But most people, in the results area of the survey, answered that it was racism. And I know that racism is still very prevalent, but I tend to think of it as a more regional thing, rather than a world-wide, nation-wide thing. So, I want your thoughts, your discussions, your vague ideas. What prejudice is most prevalent? Why? In what ways are you prejudiced, or bigoted, or just have cynical ideas? For example, I tend to be very cynical and look down on relions and people who are extremely devout in religions - any religion, but especially Catholicism. That is based on personal experience, and I try every day to fight it, but I very often fail - though happily, I sometimes succeed. My cynicism and skepticism is based on experience though, not a pre-judgment. So does it count as a prejudice against that religion? I try to keep an open mind about it, but I tend to find it alien? Anyway, just an example using me as a whipping-girl. Please, feel free to add.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Computer Illiteracy
Because I am computer illiterate the survey I wanted to post on my blog has posted in a weird spot - specifically at the bottom; the way bottom - no farther than that! Okay..anyway, if you want to read it, go there. Sorry for the stupidity - Felix where are you when I need you to explain this to me?!?!
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Happy Birthday to Me!!
Happy Birthday to me! Happy Birthday to me! I turn twenty-six today! Yay! Sort of. Shut up all of you who are younger than me and will, as my dad put it, are not on the short side of thirty. Or something to that effect. Nick took me out to dinner and a movie on Friday to celebrate because I have to work all this weekend - including today. And he's surprised me with books from my Amazon wishlist. And he's making me breakfast - isn't he sweet!? Anyway, wanted to brag a little bit. That's pretty much my post; just celebrating me for a day.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
A Rant about Religion Based Off of Exhaustion and Frustration
For some reason I have been in a somewhat anti-religion state of mind. Perhaps it is the attack on Harry Potter. Perhaps it is the idea that a religion can take away my autonomy of action and thought - a pharmacist can decide for me that birth control is wrong; the Pope and 200 other men in Rome know better than me about whether I can support a baby, handle having and caring for one; that they can decide about something so personal and inherent to MY body and MY life based on a patriarchal tradition and a dogma that's not even based on biblical references. Perhaps it is because a sexist patriarchal religion such as Catholicism can dictate to a woman what her vocation can be -even if she knows that her god wants her to be, she can't because of sexism 2,000 years ago declared it to be so. Perhaps hearing about the Mormon religion's new bout with selling young girls into polygamous marriages - based on the bible and tradition (just like Catholicism, I don't know why they're not following it?)But I rant and rave, and next week I will be attempting to succeed at my Wiccan Rede and Calling the Corners, hoping to get a blessing from the goddess and god and thinking about how Jesus was a great guy and all. Anyway, I found this funny quote/joke. Thought I'd post it. Please bear with my rant. I only slept about 4 hours last night and worked since 7 this morning. I'm exhausted.
Atheist: n, A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Atheist: n, A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Must be Jealousy
It must be jealousy at work here - Potter is more popular than the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps?
POPE'S TOP EXORCIST SAYS HARRY POTTER IS 'KING OF DARKNESS'
WebPosted Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:16:40
---Pope Benedict XVI's chief exorcist, Rev. Gabriele Amorth, has
called fictional wizard-in-training Harry Potter the "king of
darkness, the devil."
Amorth made the statement about the star of the best-selling children's
series by British author J. K. Rowling during an interview with Vatican
Radio during the week.
"Magic is always a turn to the devil," said the Roman Catholic priest,
according to Britain's Daily Mail newspaper.
Amorth, who is also the president of the International Association of
Exorcists, said the series contains many positive references to "the
satanic art" of magic and makes no distinction between black and
white magic.
The Harry Potter series has sold more than 300 million copies worldwide
and four of the books have been made into films.
Rowling has revealed that two main characters will die in the seventh and
last instalment, due to be published soon. It's expected to include a
showdown between the teen wizard and his malevolent nemesis, Lord
Voldemort.
"A price has to be paid, we are dealing with pure evil here," Rowling
said during a British chat show interview.
Amorth compared the Potter character to dictators Stalin and Hitler,
saying they were possessed by the devil.
"You can tell by their behavior and their actions, from the horrors they
committed and the atrocities that were committed on their orders. That's
why we need to defend society from demons," said Amorth, who has
reportedly performed 30,000 exorcisms.
Pope also slammed Potter
Amorth's criticisms of Potter weren't the first to emerge from
the Catholic Church, which has never been a fan of the series.
Benedict voiced his disapproval of the character and series before he
became Pope in April 2005.
Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, he wrote a supportive letter
in 2005 to the author of a book Harry Potter - Good or Evil? In it,
sociologist Gabriele Kuby had argued that Harry Potter series distorts
young people's ideas about the battle of good versus evil.
"It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter because those
are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort
Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly," Ratzinger told
Kuby in his letter.
Copyright (C) 2006 CBC. All rights reserved.
POPE'S TOP EXORCIST SAYS HARRY POTTER IS 'KING OF DARKNESS'
WebPosted Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:16:40
---Pope Benedict XVI's chief exorcist, Rev. Gabriele Amorth, has
called fictional wizard-in-training Harry Potter the "king of
darkness, the devil."
Amorth made the statement about the star of the best-selling children's
series by British author J. K. Rowling during an interview with Vatican
Radio during the week.
"Magic is always a turn to the devil," said the Roman Catholic priest,
according to Britain's Daily Mail newspaper.
Amorth, who is also the president of the International Association of
Exorcists, said the series contains many positive references to "the
satanic art" of magic and makes no distinction between black and
white magic.
The Harry Potter series has sold more than 300 million copies worldwide
and four of the books have been made into films.
Rowling has revealed that two main characters will die in the seventh and
last instalment, due to be published soon. It's expected to include a
showdown between the teen wizard and his malevolent nemesis, Lord
Voldemort.
"A price has to be paid, we are dealing with pure evil here," Rowling
said during a British chat show interview.
Amorth compared the Potter character to dictators Stalin and Hitler,
saying they were possessed by the devil.
"You can tell by their behavior and their actions, from the horrors they
committed and the atrocities that were committed on their orders. That's
why we need to defend society from demons," said Amorth, who has
reportedly performed 30,000 exorcisms.
Pope also slammed Potter
Amorth's criticisms of Potter weren't the first to emerge from
the Catholic Church, which has never been a fan of the series.
Benedict voiced his disapproval of the character and series before he
became Pope in April 2005.
Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, he wrote a supportive letter
in 2005 to the author of a book Harry Potter - Good or Evil? In it,
sociologist Gabriele Kuby had argued that Harry Potter series distorts
young people's ideas about the battle of good versus evil.
"It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter because those
are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort
Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly," Ratzinger told
Kuby in his letter.
Copyright (C) 2006 CBC. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Something that will annoy people and may get me shot
Okay, this list was one I thought quite hilarious. So far, things are going good here. My dad sold my car and so I will be getting some money to go into a savings account soon - I always feel better when I have some money in savings, just in case. My niece liked her birthday present. My dad is retiring and sounds so excited about it and healthier..probably from that stressful weight of working for Stonhard lifting. I have actually gotten some notes done for my thesis - nothing substantial yet, but at least it is progress. And people have complimented my for defending my viewpoints about certain sticky issues, which I like because even if they do or don't agree with me, at least they're open-minded enough to say, yeah she has a point or at least maybe, yeah, she's defending her ideas in a good way, not in some fanatical, anti-science, anti-religion, etc. way. Okay, the list. While I thought it was funny, and had some points, others won't. I am not meaning to offend, but some people may see it as anti-religious.
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
Date: 2006-06-02, 1:10PM MST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
Date: 2006-06-02, 1:10PM MST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Just loving sarcasm
Things Republicans Believe: A truthful and sarcastic list
1. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is a solid defense policy
2. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
3. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
4. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s and John Kerry did in the 1970s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
5. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
6. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
10. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
11. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
12. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
13. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
1. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is a solid defense policy
2. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
3. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
4. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s and John Kerry did in the 1970s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
5. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
6. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
10. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
11. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
12. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
13. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Again with the gay marriage
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Victory!! And I Helped!
Well, the FDA just approved over-the-counter access to the "morning-after" pill! And I helped by writing and emailing my senators and congressmen/women! I feel so proud to have been part of that: women are now able to prevent pregnancy if something happens; like the condom breaks, or she is raped! How wonderful. Thank goodness for birth control.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Honey, Salsa, and Pears
Well, it's been a rather busy week. The title refers to the fact that Nick and I have fallen in love with shopping for certain grocery items at the Farmer's Market. There's one that is right across the street. There, we found this fantastic, extremely fresh honey - the kind that tastes illegal, and you want to just lick the entire jar clean. It was that fantastic! Wonderful, wonderful honey! We also found great, really fresh salsa: perfectly spicy...and tried out a new type of apple and bought really great pears. In short, we are in love with this place! In other news, not much has been happening besides work and writers block - somebody please help me get over this! I can't seem to concentrate on writing my thesis!!! Work is going good: I'm getting comfortable at both places; still haven't decided about leaving one or not. Depends on schedules and such. Nick has started his first week of Library School. I am suddenly dying to be in classes, taking notes and planning for exams...I miss that. Maybe I'm just so good at being a student I don't know what else to be. My dad says that once I get my teaching certification he thinks I'll really enjoy teaching. And with the Certificate in Native American Studies, I can teach at a reservation school or a tribal college (maybe) if I want to - not much money, but I'd feel really good about myself I think. Anyway, that's that. Just for the record, I really miss my friends: Sara, Kay especially, cause there aren't really a bunch of opportunities to make new girlfriends here. Maybe at work? Or when I start classes?
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Birthdays and Such
Well, it's coming time for my dad's birthday; my niece's birthday, and in a few weeks..my birthday. I find it rather sad that celebrating birthdays goes out of style once you hit a certain age - unless you are hitting a certain age: 21,30, 40, 50, 90..What happens to those in between ages-I'd much rather celebrate a birthday at 36 than 40 - it's 4 years younger! But then, I happen to be a big fan of celebrating birthdays, spoiling people with cake, presents, or if not the traditional childhood things like cake and ice cream, streamers, presents, at least an adult dinner party, or a romantic party for two to celebrate. So few are the times when a person is spoiled just for being. I can only think of one occasion - a birthday! How nice it is just to wake up and know that one that day, people will be thinking of you - your parents (remember when he was born? )thoughts like these inspire a call, a card, a smile - well, hopefully! your siblings (man, I wish she hadn't been born! Well, maybe not ALL siblings!)your girlfriend (I am so lucky he was born!) All you have to do is just be - just have those connections-just being you is enough to celebrate. I hope.
Friday, August 18, 2006
A Return to Gay Marriage
Well, despite the enormous popularity of debating birth control, abortion, or IVF, I have decided to branch out a bit and revisit the debate over gay marriage. The whole idea that two people (no matter what their sexuality) should be able to marry is one that I am extremely comfortable with. Marriage - a commitment, before the law and your family and friends, and god (if you are of that inclination) - is that something that a freedome-loving people really want to deny to someone merely because of their sexuality? How is that really a threat to heterosexual marriage? I still haven't received an answer that I can agree with or even take seriously.
To kick off this discussion then, besides my own opinion, I have decided to print an article from the Nation from Katha Pollitt, published December 15, 2003. This will also be the kick-off to my printing her articles. Most I find thought-provoking; some I didn't agree with, some I did, and many I found absolutely hilarious. So, sit back, read, and enjoy. And if you don't enjoy this one, well, maybe future ones will strike you as funny. Or you may find them offensive. But keep an open mind - something I struggle to do sometimes, and am always a firm supporter of, and well, enjoy!
"Adam and Steve-Together at Last"
Katha Pollitt
Will Someone please explain to me how permitting gays and lesbians to marry threatens the institution of marriage? Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has declared gay marriage a constitutional right, opponents really have to get their arguments in line. The most popular theory, advanced by David Blankenhorn, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and other social conservatives is that under the tulle and orange blossoms, marriage is all about procreation. There's some truth to this as a practical matter-couples often live together, tying the know only when baby's on the way. But whether or not marriage is the best framework for child-rearing, having children isn't a marital requirement. As many have pointed out, the law permits marriage to the infertile, the elderly, the impotent, and those with no wish to procreate; it allows married couples to use birth control, to get sterilized, to be celibate. There's something creepily authoritarian and insulting about reducing marriage to procreation, as if intimacy mattered less than biological fitness. It's not a view that anyone outside of a right-wing think tank, a Catholic Marriage Tribunal, or an ultra-Orthodox rabbi's court is likely to find persuasive.
So scratch procreation. How about: Marriage is the way women domesticate men. This theory, a favorite of right-wing writer George Gilder, has some statistical support-married men are much less likely than singles to kill people, crash the car, take drugs, commit suicide - though it overlooks such husbandly failings as domestic violence, child abuse, infidelity, and abandonment. If a man rapes his wife instead of his date, it probably won't show up on a police blotter, but has civilization moved forward? Of course, this view of marriage as a barbarian-adoption program doesn't explain why women should undertake it-as is obvious from the state of the world, they haven't been too successful at it anyway. (Maybe men should civilize men-bring on the Fab Five from Queer Eye!) Nor does it explain why marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. The gay men and lesbians who want to marry doesn't impinge on the male improvement project one way or the other. Surely not even Gilder believes that a heterosexual pothead with plans for murder and suicide would be reformed by marrying a lesbian?
What about the argument of history? According to this, marriage has been around forever and has stood the test of time. Actually, though, marriage as we understand it - voluntary, monogamous, legally egalitarian, based on love, involving adults only- is a pretty recent phenomenon. FOr much of human history, polygyny was the rule - read your Old Testament - and in much of African and the Muslim world, it still is. Arranged marriages, forced marriages, child marriages, marriages predicated on the subjugation of women - gay marriage is like a fairy tale romance compared with most chapters of the history of wedlock.
The trouble with these and other arguments against gay marriage is that they overlook how loose, flexible, individualized, and easily dissolved the bonds of marriage already are. Virtually any man and woman can marry, no matter how ill assorted or little acquainted. An eighty year old man can marry an eighteen year old; a john can marry a prostitute; two terminally ill patients can marry each other from their hospital beds. You can get married by proxy, like medieval royalty, and not see each other in the flesh for years. Whatever may have been the case in the past, what undergirds marriage in most people's minds today is not some sociobiological theory about reproduction or male socialization. Nor is it the enormous bundle of priviliges society awards to married people. It's love, commitment, stability. Speaking just for myself, I don't like marriage. I prefer the old-fashioned ideal of monogamous free love, not that it worked out particularly well in my case. As a social mechanism, moreover, marriage seems to me a deeply unfair way of distributing social goods like health insurance and retirement checks, things everyone needs. Why should someone's marital status determine how much you pay the doctor, or whether you eat cat food in old age, or whether a child gets a government check if a parent dies? Still, as long as marriage is here, how can it be right to deny it to those who want it? In fact, you would think that, given how many heterosexuals are happy to live in sin, social conservatives would welcome maritally minded gays with open arms. Gays already have the baby - they can adopt in many states, and lesbians can give birth in all of them - so why deprive them of the marital bathwater?
At bottom, the objections to gay marriage are based on religious prejudice. The marriage of man and woman is "sacred," and opening it to same-sexers violates it sacral nature. That is why so many people can live with civil unions but draw the line at marriage - spiritual union. In fact, polls show a striking correlation of religiosity, especially evangelical Protestantism, with oppostition to gay marriage and with belief in homosexuality as a choice, the famous "gay lifestyle." For these poeple gay marriage is wrong because it lets gays and lesbians avoid turning themselves into the straights that God wants them to be. As a matter of law, however, marriage is not about Adam and Eve versus Adam and Steve. It's not about what God blesses, it's about what the government permits. People may think "marriage" is a word wholly owned by religion, but actually it's wholly owned by the state. No matter how big your church wedding, you still have to get a marriage license from City Hall. And just as divorced people can marry even if the Catholic Church considers it bigamy, and Muslim and Mormon men can only marry one woman, even if their holy books tell them they can wed all the girls in Apartment 3G, two men or two women should be able to marry, even if religions oppose it and it makes some heterosexuals, raised in those religions, uncomfortable.
Gay marriage - it's not about sex, it's about separation of church and state.
Hopefully you all read this far. Let the discussion begin - if it will.
To kick off this discussion then, besides my own opinion, I have decided to print an article from the Nation from Katha Pollitt, published December 15, 2003. This will also be the kick-off to my printing her articles. Most I find thought-provoking; some I didn't agree with, some I did, and many I found absolutely hilarious. So, sit back, read, and enjoy. And if you don't enjoy this one, well, maybe future ones will strike you as funny. Or you may find them offensive. But keep an open mind - something I struggle to do sometimes, and am always a firm supporter of, and well, enjoy!
"Adam and Steve-Together at Last"
Katha Pollitt
Will Someone please explain to me how permitting gays and lesbians to marry threatens the institution of marriage? Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has declared gay marriage a constitutional right, opponents really have to get their arguments in line. The most popular theory, advanced by David Blankenhorn, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and other social conservatives is that under the tulle and orange blossoms, marriage is all about procreation. There's some truth to this as a practical matter-couples often live together, tying the know only when baby's on the way. But whether or not marriage is the best framework for child-rearing, having children isn't a marital requirement. As many have pointed out, the law permits marriage to the infertile, the elderly, the impotent, and those with no wish to procreate; it allows married couples to use birth control, to get sterilized, to be celibate. There's something creepily authoritarian and insulting about reducing marriage to procreation, as if intimacy mattered less than biological fitness. It's not a view that anyone outside of a right-wing think tank, a Catholic Marriage Tribunal, or an ultra-Orthodox rabbi's court is likely to find persuasive.
So scratch procreation. How about: Marriage is the way women domesticate men. This theory, a favorite of right-wing writer George Gilder, has some statistical support-married men are much less likely than singles to kill people, crash the car, take drugs, commit suicide - though it overlooks such husbandly failings as domestic violence, child abuse, infidelity, and abandonment. If a man rapes his wife instead of his date, it probably won't show up on a police blotter, but has civilization moved forward? Of course, this view of marriage as a barbarian-adoption program doesn't explain why women should undertake it-as is obvious from the state of the world, they haven't been too successful at it anyway. (Maybe men should civilize men-bring on the Fab Five from Queer Eye!) Nor does it explain why marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. The gay men and lesbians who want to marry doesn't impinge on the male improvement project one way or the other. Surely not even Gilder believes that a heterosexual pothead with plans for murder and suicide would be reformed by marrying a lesbian?
What about the argument of history? According to this, marriage has been around forever and has stood the test of time. Actually, though, marriage as we understand it - voluntary, monogamous, legally egalitarian, based on love, involving adults only- is a pretty recent phenomenon. FOr much of human history, polygyny was the rule - read your Old Testament - and in much of African and the Muslim world, it still is. Arranged marriages, forced marriages, child marriages, marriages predicated on the subjugation of women - gay marriage is like a fairy tale romance compared with most chapters of the history of wedlock.
The trouble with these and other arguments against gay marriage is that they overlook how loose, flexible, individualized, and easily dissolved the bonds of marriage already are. Virtually any man and woman can marry, no matter how ill assorted or little acquainted. An eighty year old man can marry an eighteen year old; a john can marry a prostitute; two terminally ill patients can marry each other from their hospital beds. You can get married by proxy, like medieval royalty, and not see each other in the flesh for years. Whatever may have been the case in the past, what undergirds marriage in most people's minds today is not some sociobiological theory about reproduction or male socialization. Nor is it the enormous bundle of priviliges society awards to married people. It's love, commitment, stability. Speaking just for myself, I don't like marriage. I prefer the old-fashioned ideal of monogamous free love, not that it worked out particularly well in my case. As a social mechanism, moreover, marriage seems to me a deeply unfair way of distributing social goods like health insurance and retirement checks, things everyone needs. Why should someone's marital status determine how much you pay the doctor, or whether you eat cat food in old age, or whether a child gets a government check if a parent dies? Still, as long as marriage is here, how can it be right to deny it to those who want it? In fact, you would think that, given how many heterosexuals are happy to live in sin, social conservatives would welcome maritally minded gays with open arms. Gays already have the baby - they can adopt in many states, and lesbians can give birth in all of them - so why deprive them of the marital bathwater?
At bottom, the objections to gay marriage are based on religious prejudice. The marriage of man and woman is "sacred," and opening it to same-sexers violates it sacral nature. That is why so many people can live with civil unions but draw the line at marriage - spiritual union. In fact, polls show a striking correlation of religiosity, especially evangelical Protestantism, with oppostition to gay marriage and with belief in homosexuality as a choice, the famous "gay lifestyle." For these poeple gay marriage is wrong because it lets gays and lesbians avoid turning themselves into the straights that God wants them to be. As a matter of law, however, marriage is not about Adam and Eve versus Adam and Steve. It's not about what God blesses, it's about what the government permits. People may think "marriage" is a word wholly owned by religion, but actually it's wholly owned by the state. No matter how big your church wedding, you still have to get a marriage license from City Hall. And just as divorced people can marry even if the Catholic Church considers it bigamy, and Muslim and Mormon men can only marry one woman, even if their holy books tell them they can wed all the girls in Apartment 3G, two men or two women should be able to marry, even if religions oppose it and it makes some heterosexuals, raised in those religions, uncomfortable.
Gay marriage - it's not about sex, it's about separation of church and state.
Hopefully you all read this far. Let the discussion begin - if it will.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
I'm Baaaack!
Hello! I had such a blast in Colorado and seeing my family too. Some highlights:having lunch with Kay (barely! I was running out of time); liquid cocaine shot on Thursday night; seeing the entire city of Canon City from Skyline Drive on Friday night; white water rafting on Saturday - swimming down (sort of), falling off, getting psyched up for a Class IV that we weren't expecting; seeing Royal Gorge from a train that same day; petting a cute little beagle puppy on Sunday; playing with my niece and nephews and spending time with dad. Finally getting home and seeing Nick!!! I had a great time and it was a total blast. The people were funny, strange, cool, and just plain fun.
I got back and got my schedule - not sure how long I will continue at the Gap - not enough hours; so stay observant, I may not have that discount anymore. I am planning on really working on my thesis hard, so I can at least have a really rough draft - or most of my chapters done, by my birthday. I wonder who will remember when that is? :-) And in future posts, I will be posting articles from Katha Pollitt. So, that's an update on my life so far. I have to work tonight!
I got back and got my schedule - not sure how long I will continue at the Gap - not enough hours; so stay observant, I may not have that discount anymore. I am planning on really working on my thesis hard, so I can at least have a really rough draft - or most of my chapters done, by my birthday. I wonder who will remember when that is? :-) And in future posts, I will be posting articles from Katha Pollitt. So, that's an update on my life so far. I have to work tonight!
Monday, August 07, 2006
Trip
Well, I am off tomorrow for a week of fun...at least I hope it will be fun. I plan on seeing my dad and stepmom, my brother and sister-in-law and the kids and then off to Colorado with my younger sister to go white-water rafting and have a blast. Long drives, but totally worth it. I also got to see Alyssa, Kaylin and Judy this weekend. That was fun too! I am excited. My jobs seem to be going well...no huge paychecks or anything, but eventually, I will have steady income and some great clothes! That's really about it.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Jobs and stuff
I start training for my new job today- at the Children's Place. Should be interesting. Two hours of training and then 16 hours of work this weekend. Yikes! I just hope I am up for it. Talked to Jackie last night, and she gave me our itinerary for the trip to Colorado. We get to go white water rafting, and then gambling in Cripple Creek. I hope I win big! Ha! Sad news from Kansas though - my sister-in-law had a miscarriage; don't know much more than that, but I heard that she is doing okay. Nick saw John Kerry last Friday- here for a cancer symposium. Well, technically he saw just the back of his head, but it's still exciting. I know I would have been excited. I have been rereading the Harry Potter series, hoping to absorb as much as possible until next summer and the 7th year finally comes out. Oh, and I finished reading an interesting book of essays...read it if you are able to: it's called Jesus is Not a Republican. Really good book; some funny and thought-provoking essays. Well, that's really all. I'll post more later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)