Film Festivus
Another weekend devoted to the film festival gods, another two days of sun-drenched bliss, another Saturday and Sunday devoted to doing absolutely nothing with the greatest man on the planet, my Anthony...
This time around, the only things that went wrong during my shift at Festivus (a.k.a. Philadelphia Film Festival) is that I had no co-manager for the Ritz East and managed two theatres on my own on Saturday, and that a not-so-great manager showed up several hours early on Sunday, methinks just to piss me off.
Other than that, it was a really easy ride, with great volunteers, great friends, great movies (although I heard that some were not-so-great, but I'm going with a theme here), and great Anthony to bring me Starbuck's capuccino (my newest addiction - I'm even fiending right now!) and lunches.
Okay, I've decided that I am now STARVING and need lunch, but I am waiting for Anthony to call me back on my work phone (I just discovered that our cell phones have been turned off because we are late on our bill - oopsie). Which means that the hunger has eaten away at my brain cells and I no longer have anything else to say. Grrr....
Monday, April 18, 2005
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Another Day, Another 8 Hours Wasted at Work
The only people left in my office today are me and the new part-time development lady we just hired for a temporary fix to our lack-of-funding problem, so I have ample time to waste this afternoon. At the very least, I don't see myself being overly disturbed for the next couple of hours as my colleagues are not even in the same state today. (Although I could get a severe rap on the head from our Board members, but I have long since devised a way to avoid them when there is something else that needs to be done.)
So the big story of the day is the fact that I didn't get home until 1:30 this morning. From the Film Festival. ME. IN BED WAY AFTER MY BEDTIME. What on earth was I thinking?!!! Today I am a total zombie, and it was physically painful pulling myself out of bed this AM, let alone peeling my eyelids back from my red-veined, watery eyes. I keep telling myself, "Toto, we aren't in Kansas anymore," which for me means that I am not the college student I used to pride myself on being. I can't stay awake much past 10AM and expect to bound out of bed for work in the morning. I can't even have a drink on a school night these days. Somewhere in the past four years, I have become RESPONSIBLE. Eeek!
Except in the case of the Film Festival. I was out at the Ritz East Theatre last night (one of the holy holies in my way of thinking; the Ritz Theatres are always showing independent and foreign films, even when the Film Festival is not in town), managing one of the two theatres. All night we were pretending we had something to do with our nine volunteer ushers, but by the time the last two movies (one in each theatre) were seated, I couldn't look anyone in the eyes and say, "You need to stay here til midnight to help gather ballots at the end of the shows." So I let them all go, but one: our sweet, sweet Marianne, whom I've known for years (and was yet another witness to the now infamous 4th of July paying-the-toll incident).
Literally right after the door slammed shut behind the last departing volunteer, and while we reconciling our box office for the night, the fire alarm malfunctioned and screeched on for about twenty minutes. We had to empty both theatres, and while people were rushing about trying to figure out what was going on, I grabbed all the money, shoved it in the cash box, and wandered around the theatre trying to grasp onto any thread of a thought through the insanely jarring cacauphony of the fire alarm.
It turns out that an off-duty fire marshall was actually attempting to see one of the movies we were playing and he helped us turn off that god-awful noise.
The other upside of the evening: the fact that neither of the films could be rewound and had continued to play during our fire drill. What that means for a film festival is: LOST REVENUE. Amazingly enough, we didn't refund any ticket sales money, but we gave out a lot of guest comps for future films. I was surprised that the number wasn't higher, with one theatre having been sold out and the other near capacity, but 60 comps is still a lot of dough when you consider the fact that is the equivalent of about $570. (To me, that's a month of rent so I wouldn't laugh in the general direction of that much money flowing out of my pocket either.)
Did I mention that there was another treat in store for us? Right near the end of the films, I got word that a man was walking through the parking lot right outside the movie theatre slashing tires. As if it really needs to be said: Yay for police intervention! And Yay for me working at the singlehandedly most "interesting" venue of the festival!
Lucky for me, I had my Anthony there watching the film that should have made Mark Hamill a star! (The Big Red One, if you haven't seen it.) So I was able to get a ride home instead of walking, and we were even able to give our box office volunteer a ride home as well (thank goodness she lives right around the corner from me!).
I suppose I should feel worse for Anthony since he had actually been up at 4:30 yesterday morning, after returning home from bringing a friend to the hospital at 12:30AM that same day, but I am an evil, cold-hearted bitch and I will whine all day about my terrible position in life.
God, I need a nap...
The only people left in my office today are me and the new part-time development lady we just hired for a temporary fix to our lack-of-funding problem, so I have ample time to waste this afternoon. At the very least, I don't see myself being overly disturbed for the next couple of hours as my colleagues are not even in the same state today. (Although I could get a severe rap on the head from our Board members, but I have long since devised a way to avoid them when there is something else that needs to be done.)
So the big story of the day is the fact that I didn't get home until 1:30 this morning. From the Film Festival. ME. IN BED WAY AFTER MY BEDTIME. What on earth was I thinking?!!! Today I am a total zombie, and it was physically painful pulling myself out of bed this AM, let alone peeling my eyelids back from my red-veined, watery eyes. I keep telling myself, "Toto, we aren't in Kansas anymore," which for me means that I am not the college student I used to pride myself on being. I can't stay awake much past 10AM and expect to bound out of bed for work in the morning. I can't even have a drink on a school night these days. Somewhere in the past four years, I have become RESPONSIBLE. Eeek!
Except in the case of the Film Festival. I was out at the Ritz East Theatre last night (one of the holy holies in my way of thinking; the Ritz Theatres are always showing independent and foreign films, even when the Film Festival is not in town), managing one of the two theatres. All night we were pretending we had something to do with our nine volunteer ushers, but by the time the last two movies (one in each theatre) were seated, I couldn't look anyone in the eyes and say, "You need to stay here til midnight to help gather ballots at the end of the shows." So I let them all go, but one: our sweet, sweet Marianne, whom I've known for years (and was yet another witness to the now infamous 4th of July paying-the-toll incident).
Literally right after the door slammed shut behind the last departing volunteer, and while we reconciling our box office for the night, the fire alarm malfunctioned and screeched on for about twenty minutes. We had to empty both theatres, and while people were rushing about trying to figure out what was going on, I grabbed all the money, shoved it in the cash box, and wandered around the theatre trying to grasp onto any thread of a thought through the insanely jarring cacauphony of the fire alarm.
It turns out that an off-duty fire marshall was actually attempting to see one of the movies we were playing and he helped us turn off that god-awful noise.
The other upside of the evening: the fact that neither of the films could be rewound and had continued to play during our fire drill. What that means for a film festival is: LOST REVENUE. Amazingly enough, we didn't refund any ticket sales money, but we gave out a lot of guest comps for future films. I was surprised that the number wasn't higher, with one theatre having been sold out and the other near capacity, but 60 comps is still a lot of dough when you consider the fact that is the equivalent of about $570. (To me, that's a month of rent so I wouldn't laugh in the general direction of that much money flowing out of my pocket either.)
Did I mention that there was another treat in store for us? Right near the end of the films, I got word that a man was walking through the parking lot right outside the movie theatre slashing tires. As if it really needs to be said: Yay for police intervention! And Yay for me working at the singlehandedly most "interesting" venue of the festival!
Lucky for me, I had my Anthony there watching the film that should have made Mark Hamill a star! (The Big Red One, if you haven't seen it.) So I was able to get a ride home instead of walking, and we were even able to give our box office volunteer a ride home as well (thank goodness she lives right around the corner from me!).
I suppose I should feel worse for Anthony since he had actually been up at 4:30 yesterday morning, after returning home from bringing a friend to the hospital at 12:30AM that same day, but I am an evil, cold-hearted bitch and I will whine all day about my terrible position in life.
God, I need a nap...
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
It's Been 9 Days, 15 Hours, 58 Minutes, and a Handful of Seconds...
...since I've seen my baby. And although we are now in the same city, and he is actually in my apartment as we speak, I am chained (figuratively, might I add) to my desk for at least another half hour or so. If whining had ever gotten me anywhere in life, I might be persuaded to throw a mini-tantrum right here on the floor, screaming, "I want my Anthony NOW!" But even from here I can see the carpet stains and I already know that nobody here really gives a damn.
So, option number two would be to waste a few minutes at work to write about absolutely nothing on my Blog. Mostly because my brain is a few molecules short of full working order and it is incresingly hard for me to but nouns and verbs together to make coherent sentences, let alone come up with ways to entertain you (yes, YOU, my three whole readers).
Things that have been taking up too much of my time lately include: work (why again am I staying late and working overtime on weekends???), catching the common cold and battling with it for lack of something better to do, (still) studying for the Foreign Service Exam which is being held in D.C. the weekend of the 22nd-24th, and the Philadelphia Film Festival.
For those of you who haven't heard of the Film Festival (do you even know me at all?), you really need to get your butt back to Philadelphia for the two weeks a year that we screen films from all over the world. It's an amazing experience, whether you're volunteering or actually watching the screenings, and it should not be missed. To my way of thinking, it's just like being at Cannes or Sundance, without any of the Hollywood fuss and fickleness - nothing but straight-up, wonderfully imaginative, and well-written movies. For the movie buff in all of us...
A moment ago, I took a break from writing for a potty stop and I thought of something I could include in my post: the latest and greatest conversation amongst the elite group of people I like to call my friends. My friend Aurit recently married her beau of many years, Paul, and my amigos from college are all over the airwaves lately discussing the pros and cons of the wife (and eventual children) taking on the husband's surname after marriage.
They've bantered about the ideas of being nonconservative vs. a traditionalist, splitting the difference and combining both the man's and woman's last names into some new and improved surname (i.e. Smith + Johnson might become Smohnson or Jith or Smithson or Johnith, etc.), the good and bad aspects of the hyphenate, altering between the maiden name at work and the husband's surname in your private life, and even throwing out all the labels altogether. This is what happens when several of your friends are practicing psychologists and philosophes!
In any case, I have largely staid out of such conversations - especially when Ben puts in his two cents about women and their rightful place in the kitchen, wearing skimpy clothing no less! - because I really haven't had a lot of time to weigh in.
However, if you really think about it, where did this idea of the patrimonial heritage come from anyway? Several years ago, my mom told me this great idea that I wish had been implemented much earlier in our ancestry. She thinks that all female offspring should keep the name of the mother, while the male offspring keep the name of the father. In my way of thinking, this should extend to same-sex couples as well - with one child taking one name, and the next child taking the other surname, and so on and so forth. That way, the idea of a name "dying out" becomes obsolete, unless a couple decides never to have children (and they were the last of that line) or they only have one child.
Actually, the more I think about it, then to be fair, every family would have to have two children, with each child taking a different name. Maybe it's not such a good idea after all.
But it would have worked out in my family, where there is only my brother and I. Today I would then have the strong Italian surname of Locatelli (if we went further back, I am sure I would have some other Italian surname, but Locatelli is as far back as I can remember off the top of my head) and Dan would have our current Czech surname (which has it's origins in the 15th Century). Although, keeping to that tradition, my first name would probably not be Ryan - it would be Emma Rose Locatelli (Ryan Locatelli just doesn't have the same ring - and my mom might have thought to use my two great-grandmothers' names earlier if she was trying to make it fit to the Italian surname, rather than many years later after I was in high school).
It is totally possible that had my mother had this inspiration a lot earlier in my life, I might be a completely different person.
Yet that brings me back to the idea of taking on a husband's name at marriage. I have read a few things on the internet that are just plain weird (for example, one site claims that if a woman won't be "submissive" to a man's masculinity and take on his name at marriage, then she is really not physically or sexually attracted to him and will be the one to initiate divorce), and inconclusive, but I haven't been able to find an actual explanation for the adoption of the man's name.
Maybe it has something to do with the ancient tribal custom of "selling" your daughter into another family, in essence giving her away in exchange for money, bartered goods, or prestige that could be gained from a propitious marriage. In that situation, the male was clearly dominant so perhaps as time passed and surnames were adopted, it was only natural that women adopt the males' names.
If that is the case, then there is some validity to the feminist claim that women are continuing to be subservient to men if they continue to take on their husband's name upon marriage. Unless, of course, you refuse to acknowledge that line of thinking, and just continue with that tradition for traditions' sake.
For me, I like the idea of changing into a new role or moving into a new phase of my life by adopting a new name. It is the only time in life that you still have legitimate cause to pick out your own name (and no, I don't really give any credence to people who have officially changed their names to symbols), whether it's hyphenated, some freakish amelioration of two names, or just his last name replacing that of your father and clearly signifying who is the ultimate male in your life now. I see it as a chance to blossom into something new.
...since I've seen my baby. And although we are now in the same city, and he is actually in my apartment as we speak, I am chained (figuratively, might I add) to my desk for at least another half hour or so. If whining had ever gotten me anywhere in life, I might be persuaded to throw a mini-tantrum right here on the floor, screaming, "I want my Anthony NOW!" But even from here I can see the carpet stains and I already know that nobody here really gives a damn.
So, option number two would be to waste a few minutes at work to write about absolutely nothing on my Blog. Mostly because my brain is a few molecules short of full working order and it is incresingly hard for me to but nouns and verbs together to make coherent sentences, let alone come up with ways to entertain you (yes, YOU, my three whole readers).
Things that have been taking up too much of my time lately include: work (why again am I staying late and working overtime on weekends???), catching the common cold and battling with it for lack of something better to do, (still) studying for the Foreign Service Exam which is being held in D.C. the weekend of the 22nd-24th, and the Philadelphia Film Festival.
For those of you who haven't heard of the Film Festival (do you even know me at all?), you really need to get your butt back to Philadelphia for the two weeks a year that we screen films from all over the world. It's an amazing experience, whether you're volunteering or actually watching the screenings, and it should not be missed. To my way of thinking, it's just like being at Cannes or Sundance, without any of the Hollywood fuss and fickleness - nothing but straight-up, wonderfully imaginative, and well-written movies. For the movie buff in all of us...
A moment ago, I took a break from writing for a potty stop and I thought of something I could include in my post: the latest and greatest conversation amongst the elite group of people I like to call my friends. My friend Aurit recently married her beau of many years, Paul, and my amigos from college are all over the airwaves lately discussing the pros and cons of the wife (and eventual children) taking on the husband's surname after marriage.
They've bantered about the ideas of being nonconservative vs. a traditionalist, splitting the difference and combining both the man's and woman's last names into some new and improved surname (i.e. Smith + Johnson might become Smohnson or Jith or Smithson or Johnith, etc.), the good and bad aspects of the hyphenate, altering between the maiden name at work and the husband's surname in your private life, and even throwing out all the labels altogether. This is what happens when several of your friends are practicing psychologists and philosophes!
In any case, I have largely staid out of such conversations - especially when Ben puts in his two cents about women and their rightful place in the kitchen, wearing skimpy clothing no less! - because I really haven't had a lot of time to weigh in.
However, if you really think about it, where did this idea of the patrimonial heritage come from anyway? Several years ago, my mom told me this great idea that I wish had been implemented much earlier in our ancestry. She thinks that all female offspring should keep the name of the mother, while the male offspring keep the name of the father. In my way of thinking, this should extend to same-sex couples as well - with one child taking one name, and the next child taking the other surname, and so on and so forth. That way, the idea of a name "dying out" becomes obsolete, unless a couple decides never to have children (and they were the last of that line) or they only have one child.
Actually, the more I think about it, then to be fair, every family would have to have two children, with each child taking a different name. Maybe it's not such a good idea after all.
But it would have worked out in my family, where there is only my brother and I. Today I would then have the strong Italian surname of Locatelli (if we went further back, I am sure I would have some other Italian surname, but Locatelli is as far back as I can remember off the top of my head) and Dan would have our current Czech surname (which has it's origins in the 15th Century). Although, keeping to that tradition, my first name would probably not be Ryan - it would be Emma Rose Locatelli (Ryan Locatelli just doesn't have the same ring - and my mom might have thought to use my two great-grandmothers' names earlier if she was trying to make it fit to the Italian surname, rather than many years later after I was in high school).
It is totally possible that had my mother had this inspiration a lot earlier in my life, I might be a completely different person.
Yet that brings me back to the idea of taking on a husband's name at marriage. I have read a few things on the internet that are just plain weird (for example, one site claims that if a woman won't be "submissive" to a man's masculinity and take on his name at marriage, then she is really not physically or sexually attracted to him and will be the one to initiate divorce), and inconclusive, but I haven't been able to find an actual explanation for the adoption of the man's name.
Maybe it has something to do with the ancient tribal custom of "selling" your daughter into another family, in essence giving her away in exchange for money, bartered goods, or prestige that could be gained from a propitious marriage. In that situation, the male was clearly dominant so perhaps as time passed and surnames were adopted, it was only natural that women adopt the males' names.
If that is the case, then there is some validity to the feminist claim that women are continuing to be subservient to men if they continue to take on their husband's name upon marriage. Unless, of course, you refuse to acknowledge that line of thinking, and just continue with that tradition for traditions' sake.
For me, I like the idea of changing into a new role or moving into a new phase of my life by adopting a new name. It is the only time in life that you still have legitimate cause to pick out your own name (and no, I don't really give any credence to people who have officially changed their names to symbols), whether it's hyphenated, some freakish amelioration of two names, or just his last name replacing that of your father and clearly signifying who is the ultimate male in your life now. I see it as a chance to blossom into something new.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Whoa! Partner
Before you guys get all up in my junk (to steal a phrase from the ever-eloquent Anthony), yes, I fully realize that my webpage looks like someone ran over it with a lawnmower. I blame it all on my local expert, one Mr. X - as in THE Ex, my former beau, Vince. He has been helping me set things up on the HTML side of things (oh, the limited shelf life of my own HTML knowledge!), and then he had to go incommunicado so he could move. HOW RUDE!
I tell ya, if I ever get my hands on you, boy...
Speaking of "boy," I am nearing the end of a really fantastic book called The King Years by Taylor Branch. It's all about the civil rights movement here in the U.S. and how wonderfully backward we white folk used to be. And yes, I use the term "used" very lightly.
In any case, the book won a Pulitzer Prize and albeit of great and daunting length, I fully suggest you go buy you a copy (or borrow it from your local library, just like poor people like me do).
Other things of note in my life: yesterday I decided to move. Yes, yes, I know, I just got (back) here. But at the same time, I can feel it's time to move on again (what with the insanely unsatisfying job and the hostile home environment). My goal is to be in Massachusetts or New York by June 1st. Most of that decision relies on my ability to get accepted into the Columbia Publishing Course. If I am accepted, then it's off to Columbia's dorms and the rush of NYC again. If not, there's a very good chance I'll be summering with the Kennedy's. Or, at least I'll be in the same state.
In either case, what I am most looking forward to is a change in scenery, a change in the daily grind, and a slice of happiness.
Before you guys get all up in my junk (to steal a phrase from the ever-eloquent Anthony), yes, I fully realize that my webpage looks like someone ran over it with a lawnmower. I blame it all on my local expert, one Mr. X - as in THE Ex, my former beau, Vince. He has been helping me set things up on the HTML side of things (oh, the limited shelf life of my own HTML knowledge!), and then he had to go incommunicado so he could move. HOW RUDE!
I tell ya, if I ever get my hands on you, boy...
Speaking of "boy," I am nearing the end of a really fantastic book called The King Years by Taylor Branch. It's all about the civil rights movement here in the U.S. and how wonderfully backward we white folk used to be. And yes, I use the term "used" very lightly.
In any case, the book won a Pulitzer Prize and albeit of great and daunting length, I fully suggest you go buy you a copy (or borrow it from your local library, just like poor people like me do).
Other things of note in my life: yesterday I decided to move. Yes, yes, I know, I just got (back) here. But at the same time, I can feel it's time to move on again (what with the insanely unsatisfying job and the hostile home environment). My goal is to be in Massachusetts or New York by June 1st. Most of that decision relies on my ability to get accepted into the Columbia Publishing Course. If I am accepted, then it's off to Columbia's dorms and the rush of NYC again. If not, there's a very good chance I'll be summering with the Kennedy's. Or, at least I'll be in the same state.
In either case, what I am most looking forward to is a change in scenery, a change in the daily grind, and a slice of happiness.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Offering
So I haven't posted in a while, and this is all I have to offer. Maybe next time around, folks.
Take the quiz at the Dating Diversions Site - Dating Jokes - Dating Advice
So I haven't posted in a while, and this is all I have to offer. Maybe next time around, folks.
| Your dating personality profile: Liberal - Politics matters to you, and you aren't afraid to share your left-leaning views. You would never be caught voting for a conservative candidate. Adventurous - Just sitting around the house is not something that appeals to you. You love to be out trying new things and really experiencing life. Sensual - You are not particularly shy when it comes to your sexuality. You know what you like and do not feel inhibited. | Your date match profile: Shy - You are put off by people who are open books. You are drawn to someone who is a bit more mysterious. You want to draw him out of his shell and get to know what he is all about. Adventurous - You are looking for someone who is willing to try new things and experience life to its fullest. You need a companion who encourages you to take risks and do exciting things. Practical - You are drawn to people who are sensible and smart. Flashy, materialistic people turn you off. You appreciate the simpler side of living. |
Your Top Ten Traits 1. Liberal 2. Adventurous 3. Sensual 4. Big-Hearted 5. Intellectual 6. Outgoing 7. Wealthy/Ambitious 8. Athletic 9. Practical 10. Stylish | Your Top Ten Match Traits 1. Shy 2. Adventurous 3. Practical 4. Big-Hearted 5. Intellectual 6. Conservative 7. Athletic 8. Wealthy/Ambitious 9. Funny 10. Traditional |
Take the quiz at the Dating Diversions Site - Dating Jokes - Dating Advice
Friday, March 18, 2005
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly...
The good news is that my Columbia application is completed, mailed, and in the hands of the graduate school gods.
The bad news is that I still don't have time to play because I am studying for the foreign service exam.
The ugly is the fact that I am in my office and my fingertips are still blue.
The good news is that my Columbia application is completed, mailed, and in the hands of the graduate school gods.
The bad news is that I still don't have time to play because I am studying for the foreign service exam.
The ugly is the fact that I am in my office and my fingertips are still blue.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
My Shot at the News
Many of my friends' Blogs are concerned with world and local news (i.e. Scott and Brooke, Erin...) and their thoughts on the issues at hand, as opposed to being centered on just their daily lives, and I thought I might take a shot at some issues that concern me every so often. While I don't have a personally set policy on everything under the sun, there are a few things I can discuss at length with a definitive opinion. So let me get ranting now, with my dogmatic self:
I read this article on the BBC today:
US exports anti-abortion policy
by Nadene Ghouri, Social Affairs Specialist, BBC Radio 5
Wendy Wright is a genuinely concerned woman. Concerned Women of America is the name of the political lobby group she works for. Fiercely anti-abortion, their aim is to bring biblical values to US policy.
"It's funny how the moral positions are usually the healthier, safer and politically sensible positions," she says, speaking at her home in Washington.
On his first business day in office, with the support of voters like Wendy, President George W Bush started a war few people have heard about - his war on abortion.
He reinstated an old policy from the Reagan days called the Mexico City policy or "gag rule". The rule states that the United States will not allow its overseas aid money to be used to fund groups that carry out or provide any kind of advice or information about abortion.
Hundreds of women's health organisations in the poorest nations of the world - places where maternal mortality and infant death are high - faced a tough choice. Either sign the gag rule and be silenced on abortion, or refuse and lose millions of dollars in US aid.
Most refused to sign. As a result, thousands of family planning clinics across the developing world have closed their doors, making access to vital contraceptives hard to come by.
The US aim was to cut abortion worldwide, but has it worked?
Back-street abortions
I travelled to Ethiopia - a country where abortion is illegal but where a
recent study at Addis Ababa hospital found half of all female deaths there
were caused by botched back-street abortions. Here the cost of silence can
be high.
If they are forced to give birth they throw the children into latrines or abandon them for the hyenas to eat them
Amare Badada, Ethiopian Family Guidance Association
One of the most upsetting moments was standing outside a one-room tin hut where Asmara, a prostitute, had bled to death just hours earlier.
Aged 22, she received condoms from the local Marie Stopes clinic. It closed when
the US cut its cash after it failed to sign. She got pregnant and died.
"She had no money to go to hospital, so became too weak to move, then she died," her friend told me.
On the other side of Addis Ababa is Molu, living with nine children in one room. She has been told one more baby will kill her.
But the clinic that gives her the pill for free is shutting. There is no other clinic.
Molu says if she gets pregnant again, she will carry out her own abortion with wire. "Either way I will die," she says with chilling fatality.
'Hypocritical'
In the region of Nazareth in Ethiopia's highland plains, I met Amare Badada of the Ethiopian Family Guidance Association.
Mr Badada lists rape, forced marriage and genital mutilation as part of daily life for women.
"These women will always find a way to abort somehow," he said. "If they are forced to give birth they throw the children into latrines or abandon them for the hyenas to eat them."
Mr Badada refused to sign the gag rule, and has since watched his organisation's family planning clinics close down one after the other. In the region of Nazareth, there were 54 clinics last year. Next year there will be just 10.
Each clinic serves approximately 500 women who walk an average of 10
kilometres (six miles) to get there. The impact of the closures is immense.
"Under the gag rule, I can treat a woman who comes bleeding after an illegal abortion but I am not allowed to warn her of the dangers before she goes," Mr Badada said. "We should not be told what to think and say.
"It is hypocritical to allow US taxpayers' money to be used to fund abortion in the States but not here.
"The US is driving women into the hands of back-street abortionists."
Getachew Bekele, Ethiopian director of Marie Stopes International, who also refused, says: "It hasn't worked to cut abortion. All it has done is deprive women of condoms."
Abstinence
A key aim of the American anti-abortion lobby is to silence Marie Stopes, which is
lobbying to overturn the abortion laws in Ethiopia and other places where it is illegal.
Under President Bush, the anti-abortion movement is stronger than ever.
Supporters believe every woman has the right to have as many babies as God plans. They also believe the high death-rate of mothers in labour, and the numbers of unwanted babies can be tackled with an alternative solution - abstinence.
Mr Bush has won plaudits for his promise to spend $15bn to fight Aids, but few people know that one-third of the money set aside for prevention is to go to faith-based, abstinence-only programmes.
But not all Americans agree. Wendy Turnbull works for Population Action International - a pro-choice lobby group.
"How can we look Africa in the eye and say here you go - here's the money, but we tell you how to spend it. How arrogant is that?"
But Wendy Wright remains convinced America knows best.
"It's not that I know what is right for other women," she says. "It's that I know what is right."
You can hear Nadene Ghouri's report Bush's Other War on Radio 5 Live at 1030 on Sunday 29 June.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/americas/3028820.stm
Published: 2003/06/28 17:01:13 GMT© BBC MMV
Yesterday there was some equally horrific article about our present administration's policy in regards to the UN declaration on women's rights. Has our President ever studied history, or even attempted to follow his own party's chronology? In 1960, even the Republican Presidential hopeful, Senator Barry Goldwater of Alabama, said, "You can't legislate morality."
That thought still holds true today. When we have tried to "legislate morality" in the past, perhaps most notably with Prohibition in the 1920's and even in the past few decades with our "War on Drugs," it has been an abject failure. In a free and democratic society, you cannot tell anyone how they are to think on any particular issue. Even the party lines of Democrat and Republican blur when it comes to the so-called "moral" issues.
I came across this argument, from a 20th century sociologist while I was whiling away my time on the web that illustrates a beautiful point:
What then is the relation of law to morality? Law cannot prescribe morality, it can prescribe only external actions and therefore it should prescribe only those actions whose mere fulfillment, from whatever motive, the state adjudges to be conducive to welfare. What actions are these? Obviously such actions as promote the physical and social conditions requisite for the expression and development of free—or moral—personality.... Law does not and cannot cover all the ground of morality. To turn all moral obligations into legal obligations would be to destroy morality. Happily it is impossible. No code of law can envisage the myriad changing situations that determine moral obligations. Moreover, there must be one legal code for all, but moral codes vary as much as the individual characters of which they are the expression. To legislate against the moral
codes of one’s fellows is a very grave act, requiring for its justification the most indubitable and universally admitted of social gains, for it is to steal their moral codes, to suppress their characters.
by: R.M. MacIver (1882–1970), Scottish sociologist, educator. The Modern State, ch. 5, Oxford University Press (1926).
Many of my friends' Blogs are concerned with world and local news (i.e. Scott and Brooke, Erin...) and their thoughts on the issues at hand, as opposed to being centered on just their daily lives, and I thought I might take a shot at some issues that concern me every so often. While I don't have a personally set policy on everything under the sun, there are a few things I can discuss at length with a definitive opinion. So let me get ranting now, with my dogmatic self:
I read this article on the BBC today:
US exports anti-abortion policy
by Nadene Ghouri, Social Affairs Specialist, BBC Radio 5
Wendy Wright is a genuinely concerned woman. Concerned Women of America is the name of the political lobby group she works for. Fiercely anti-abortion, their aim is to bring biblical values to US policy.
"It's funny how the moral positions are usually the healthier, safer and politically sensible positions," she says, speaking at her home in Washington.
On his first business day in office, with the support of voters like Wendy, President George W Bush started a war few people have heard about - his war on abortion.
He reinstated an old policy from the Reagan days called the Mexico City policy or "gag rule". The rule states that the United States will not allow its overseas aid money to be used to fund groups that carry out or provide any kind of advice or information about abortion.
Hundreds of women's health organisations in the poorest nations of the world - places where maternal mortality and infant death are high - faced a tough choice. Either sign the gag rule and be silenced on abortion, or refuse and lose millions of dollars in US aid.
Most refused to sign. As a result, thousands of family planning clinics across the developing world have closed their doors, making access to vital contraceptives hard to come by.
The US aim was to cut abortion worldwide, but has it worked?
Back-street abortions
I travelled to Ethiopia - a country where abortion is illegal but where a
recent study at Addis Ababa hospital found half of all female deaths there
were caused by botched back-street abortions. Here the cost of silence can
be high.
If they are forced to give birth they throw the children into latrines or abandon them for the hyenas to eat them
Amare Badada, Ethiopian Family Guidance Association
One of the most upsetting moments was standing outside a one-room tin hut where Asmara, a prostitute, had bled to death just hours earlier.
Aged 22, she received condoms from the local Marie Stopes clinic. It closed when
the US cut its cash after it failed to sign. She got pregnant and died.
"She had no money to go to hospital, so became too weak to move, then she died," her friend told me.
On the other side of Addis Ababa is Molu, living with nine children in one room. She has been told one more baby will kill her.
But the clinic that gives her the pill for free is shutting. There is no other clinic.
Molu says if she gets pregnant again, she will carry out her own abortion with wire. "Either way I will die," she says with chilling fatality.
'Hypocritical'
In the region of Nazareth in Ethiopia's highland plains, I met Amare Badada of the Ethiopian Family Guidance Association.
Mr Badada lists rape, forced marriage and genital mutilation as part of daily life for women.
"These women will always find a way to abort somehow," he said. "If they are forced to give birth they throw the children into latrines or abandon them for the hyenas to eat them."
Mr Badada refused to sign the gag rule, and has since watched his organisation's family planning clinics close down one after the other. In the region of Nazareth, there were 54 clinics last year. Next year there will be just 10.
Each clinic serves approximately 500 women who walk an average of 10
kilometres (six miles) to get there. The impact of the closures is immense.
"Under the gag rule, I can treat a woman who comes bleeding after an illegal abortion but I am not allowed to warn her of the dangers before she goes," Mr Badada said. "We should not be told what to think and say.
"It is hypocritical to allow US taxpayers' money to be used to fund abortion in the States but not here.
"The US is driving women into the hands of back-street abortionists."
Getachew Bekele, Ethiopian director of Marie Stopes International, who also refused, says: "It hasn't worked to cut abortion. All it has done is deprive women of condoms."
Abstinence
A key aim of the American anti-abortion lobby is to silence Marie Stopes, which is
lobbying to overturn the abortion laws in Ethiopia and other places where it is illegal.
Under President Bush, the anti-abortion movement is stronger than ever.
Supporters believe every woman has the right to have as many babies as God plans. They also believe the high death-rate of mothers in labour, and the numbers of unwanted babies can be tackled with an alternative solution - abstinence.
Mr Bush has won plaudits for his promise to spend $15bn to fight Aids, but few people know that one-third of the money set aside for prevention is to go to faith-based, abstinence-only programmes.
But not all Americans agree. Wendy Turnbull works for Population Action International - a pro-choice lobby group.
"How can we look Africa in the eye and say here you go - here's the money, but we tell you how to spend it. How arrogant is that?"
But Wendy Wright remains convinced America knows best.
"It's not that I know what is right for other women," she says. "It's that I know what is right."
You can hear Nadene Ghouri's report Bush's Other War on Radio 5 Live at 1030 on Sunday 29 June.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/americas/3028820.stm
Published: 2003/06/28 17:01:13 GMT© BBC MMV
Yesterday there was some equally horrific article about our present administration's policy in regards to the UN declaration on women's rights. Has our President ever studied history, or even attempted to follow his own party's chronology? In 1960, even the Republican Presidential hopeful, Senator Barry Goldwater of Alabama, said, "You can't legislate morality."
That thought still holds true today. When we have tried to "legislate morality" in the past, perhaps most notably with Prohibition in the 1920's and even in the past few decades with our "War on Drugs," it has been an abject failure. In a free and democratic society, you cannot tell anyone how they are to think on any particular issue. Even the party lines of Democrat and Republican blur when it comes to the so-called "moral" issues.
I came across this argument, from a 20th century sociologist while I was whiling away my time on the web that illustrates a beautiful point:
What then is the relation of law to morality? Law cannot prescribe morality, it can prescribe only external actions and therefore it should prescribe only those actions whose mere fulfillment, from whatever motive, the state adjudges to be conducive to welfare. What actions are these? Obviously such actions as promote the physical and social conditions requisite for the expression and development of free—or moral—personality.... Law does not and cannot cover all the ground of morality. To turn all moral obligations into legal obligations would be to destroy morality. Happily it is impossible. No code of law can envisage the myriad changing situations that determine moral obligations. Moreover, there must be one legal code for all, but moral codes vary as much as the individual characters of which they are the expression. To legislate against the moral
codes of one’s fellows is a very grave act, requiring for its justification the most indubitable and universally admitted of social gains, for it is to steal their moral codes, to suppress their characters.
by: R.M. MacIver (1882–1970), Scottish sociologist, educator. The Modern State, ch. 5, Oxford University Press (1926).
Chillingly, a large number of Americans decided to vote in the November elections based on "moral issues." While the 527's administering these broad-based exit polls never clearly defined the meaning of such a broad category as "moral issues," it seems to me that morality was fairly well defined during the debates and in my own contact with the general public through my job with a political watchdog in Philadelphia as dealing with abortion, gay rights, religion and the War on Iraq issues.
Today, however, I am dealing with the abortion issue. While I personally have never had to make such a difficult decision, nor can I completely understand all the emotions and consequences due to such an action, I don't understand why people can't agree to disagree. Why can't abortion be a legal procedure without the church and other such advocates deciding that for their devotees it is not an option? In other words, why are so many people hell-bent on making decisions for other people?
I do not feel the need to consult the President of the United States when faced with the choice of boyfriends, cars, careers, and other external forces, so why should I be shackled by laws that aim to regulate religious thought and what I do with my own body? As a woman faced with so many other degradations on a daily basis because of the simple fact that I was born without a penis, why would I want to give up what little control I have in my own life?
While many Bush supporters claim that the current administration does NOT violate our historical separation of church and state ideal, it is clear to me that he is pushing his Christianity onto all of us, even with something so simple as cutting back all foreign aid to country programs that support abortion measures (i.e. cutting off your nose despite your face) and putting 1/3 of U.S. funding for international AIDS programmes into faith-based initiatives that preach abstinence only. Does he not realize that in certain countries this is not a choice for women? Incidence of rape, molestation, and genital mutilation are common practices in other parts of the world.
In fact, there are many instances of rape and molestation in the United States which need to be addressed as well. Science has thus far determined that human life does not exist until at least the third trimester of pregnancy. Prior to that, I see no real problem for women to make an educated choice on what is best for them (morally, financially and spiritually). If that woman is a devoted Catholic, then maybe she will side with the Pope. If that woman was raped, or is in physical danger due to the pregnancy, then maybe she will decide to go through with the procedure.
What it seems to really come down to is one's choice of faith, and that, my friends, is EXACTLY why we cannot legislate against performing or receiving abortions. With the separation of church and state that we hold so dear in this country, it is not only illegal but it is downright silly to start creating laws based on a religious faith, whether it's a commonly held religion or not.
As Americans, we cherish the idea of living our lives in "pursuit of happiness," free from the religious and social persecution of others. I don't make any bones about greatly disliking the Bush administration, and abortion is only one more issue that makes me feel like a persecuted minority in this country. I can't wait until 2008, when we can get this religious and thought-challenged zealot out of office for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
