What is in a Name? Buday or Bijon ©
What is in a family surname, a first name, or a middle moniker? Today as I reflect on a current court case, I am reminded of my own history, my Mom's, and several stories told by former President Gerald R.Ford. for the right to take Diana Bijon's last name. The two recently married.
Michael never felt connected to his own natural father. Mister Buday declares, "I had a rough childhood with my father," He continues, "We never really got along. Diana's father stepped up, gave me career advice.
He's family." The term "family" is often heartfe it means more than any surname. At least it does to Michael Buday.
on a ridge in the Grand Tetons, they had talked about the future and children and names — specifically their own surnames. She loved hers. He wanted to shed his.It seems changing names is easily done if you are a woman, marrying a man, and taking his name as yours. If the arrangement is other than the accepted convention, stumbling blocks are conveniently placed in your path.Diana Bijon asked her boyfriend if he would take her last name if they got married.
"I always hoped I would meet a guy who would let my kids take my name. My name dies with me, and my sister and I love my dad so much," said Bijon, 28, an ER nurse at UCLA whose father is a French émigré.
Mike Buday, estranged from his father, felt little attachment to his last name. He agreed to change it.
"Diana's father, to a certain extent, is a father figure to me," he said.
A couple of years later, when Buday, 29, proposed marriage while on a backpacking trip, Bijon reminded him about their previous conversation.
"I said, 'Remember we talked about names? Are you really going to take my last name?' "
Buday, unfazed, said yes.
"It was," he said, "not a big deal."
Not until he actually tried to take his fiancée's last name.
I know this from my own life experience.
My Mom had her own traumas and dramas. Former President Ford also changed his name. As a very young child, "Lesley Lynch King" was given his stepfather's name, Gerald Rudolff Ford.
However, the legal papers were not prepared until Jerry Ford Junior was an adult.
The past President was given the name Leslie Lynch King, Junior, at birth. Two weeks after baby "Leslie" was born, his mother, Dorothy Ayer Gardner [King] separated from the senior King and sought a divorce.
The divorce was granted a little over a year after she left. Another four years later, "Leslie's" mother remarried. This time she wed a gentle man named, Gerald R.
Ford. They began calling her son theirs and unofficially changed the child's name.
President Ford spoke of his "father" often and always expressed his deep love.
Gerald R. Ford Junior did not declare his fondness for the man that helped to give him a physical presence in this world; he lovingly stated his care for the man who had meaning in his life, Gerald Rudolff Ford Senior. The former President did not officially change his name until he was twenty-three [23] years of age.
Securing the surname that Mister Ford thought most significant was important to him, even as an adult.
In my own life, my natural father, also very well off, was indifferent. We were not close.
In truth, according to my eldest sister, after my birth my "father" barely came home. I trust that her observation is true, for I do not recall my "father" being part of my life.
My biological father was an excellent provider.
He worked hard; nevertheless, he was not part of my life. My Mom, apparently had her own complaints or concerns. After more than twenty years of marriage, my Mom chose to leave.
After my Mom's divorce, she met and married another man, one that was meaningful in my life. I too was using my "Dad's" last name before being adopted. I met with my birth father once after Daddy formally entered my life and it was not good.
As the former President's biography states . . .
Ford grew up in a middle class family. He was a healthy, industrious youth who helped out with the chores.The same could be said for my meeting.
When he was 12 or 13, Ford's He first met his biological father when he was 17 and would see him only one other time.Young Ford was bitter about his wealthy father's indifference toward him. He called their first meeting the most traumatic experience of his youth.
In my "parents" home, no one yelled or screamed. Our home life was quite quiet and calm. On the afternoon I met with my birth father, loud voices were all I heard.
The man that gave me a physical life was beyond distressed; his name would not live on. Not only was he, in his own mind, unfortunate enough to produce three daughters, this one, me, did not want to retain his last name. I had no desire to pass my birth name on.
My biological father thought the tradition of "passing on the family name" was important. Our family name seemed more significant for him than the family ever did. According to my "father," tradition and history are lost when the name no longer lives.
Michael Buday acknowledges this.
Michael Buday describes his reasons: how his new bride, Diana Bijon, came from a son-less family and wanted to continue her family name, and how he's much closer to her father than his own. "Diana's father stepped up, gave me career advice," Buday says.However, changing one's name is not as easy as we might imagine. In my own life, I understood, I needed my biological father's permission."He's family."
It was four long years before my "father" relented and authorized the legal adoption. Perhaps, Gerald Ford was forced to wait to change his name. It may be that his biological father was as reluctant as was my own.
"Leslie Lynch King, Junior" being a boy, had the power to perpetrate the tradition in a way that I, as a woman, might not. Possibly Gerald R. Ford Junior was not granted the right to change his names as a youth.
Once an adult, he may have elected to follow his heart
Sadly, even adults are not always awarded the privilege of doing as they desire. Michael Buday is realizing this.
wanting to take your wife's last name in marriage, bring your wallet or your lawyer.Mister Buday contends women can change their names easily, and they can; however, at times there are repercussions. USA Today reports .One recent groom is opting for the latter, suing the state for not making the name-switch an equal opportunity proposition.
. .
a bride wanting to change her name can do so in California for less than $100, it's no easy task for a groom, he says.There are many unexpected dynamics involved in changing names, first, last, and middle."To officially change his name to hers — and for future Social Security benefits, Buday says — a man must pay a $320 court fee, advertise his intention in a newspaper for four weeks and get a judge's approval."
In my own life, I had to meet with a judge.
At the age of thirteen, I was interviewed. My parents were probed. An attorney was present and yes, money changed hands.
My Mom had another experience, different than Mister Buday's, Jerry Ford's, or my own. After marrying a third time, my Mom chose to retain her second husband's name. It was my last name as well.
We shared it, just as we shared a deep emotional bond.
Her new husband took our surname as his middle. She, in turn acquired his last name as her middle moniker.
Thus, professionally my Mom was secure. The last name on her credentials was the same surname that appeared on her office door. Personally, she was still as she was.
Physically and emotionally, she had a more solid marriage and a better sense of herself. Her last name was no longer tied to her being in the traditional manner.
Yet, when she went to the bank, with important documents to sign, she was harassed.
My Mom was told she could not take her husband's last name as her middle. The banker said, "You are not legally a person because of what you did with your name." She cried.
This was the second difficult and painful event my Mom experienced while grappling with her names. At the age of forty-eight she discovered her father had never done as he promised. When she was seven years old, she was told she could change her first name.
Her Dad, my Grandfather would file the proper papers. He never did.
My Mom realized this accidentally while doing official government business.
The circumstances were typical. She was engaged in a bureaucratic endeavor. She needed to prove that she was she.
She thought she could and then discovered, records did not match. Having learned that the necessary rules and regulations were not followed in her youth, my Mom was told she had to create documentation validating that she was who she said she was. The course of action was costly.
It was a time consuming process. The unconventional often is. Michael Buday realized this.
On the marriage license application, which now costs $70 to file in L.A. County, Bijon could simply fill in her last name or her soon-to-be husband's last name.Mister Buday thought this obscene, offensive, or over-the-top. He said of the experience .
But if Buday wanted to become a Bijon, he would have to get an order of the court to do so — and not before he had filed a petition, paid $320, advertised public notice of his intention to change his name for four weeks in a local newspaper and then appeared before a judge.
. .
"It strikes both of us — especially me — that this is not on equal ground," said Buday, now married to Bijon for more than a year but reduced to still using his, well, maiden name.The agrees and wishes to represent Mister Buday in his endeavors. Indeed, they believe Buday has a case for such an argument and"This is about gender equality."
Today the organization plans to file suit against the state of California in federal court, arguing that the difficulty a husband faces when changing his name to his wife's violates the equal protection clause provided by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.Six states within this country do allow individuals to choose their names with little if any interference. These seem to allow for sentiment and free choice. Others demand dollars or deem the significance is bureaucratic.
"This is important to the couple and it's important symbolically," said the local ACLU's legal director, Mark Rosenbaum, who called the current license application "the perfect marriage application for the 17th century."
When the couple, who live in Marina del Rey, sent an e-mail about their plight to the ACLU — one of thousands of inquiries the group receives — the organization took on the case with gusto.
"Every step of that process reflects a process of subordination of the wife," Rosenbaum said."You have to get permission of the state to choose the name of the wife, you have to pay for it … you have to let the public know…. And finally, you have to go to court to get approval.
"If you want to set up a system to discourage couples from adopting the name of the wife, this is it."
Some naming books speak of a sacred association. The forename, given name, middle name, maiden name, surname, and family names, connect an individual to his or her own being. They validate a feeling, or sustain a tradition.
Supposedly, a title means more than, 'I filed the required papers' or 'The government sanctioned my mark.' However, one wonders.
Does your moniker personify your identity?
Does our name unite us with those we love or are our names only legal representations used to generate commerce and establish government records.
Please tell me, what is your name? Is it significant; does it speak to your sense of family, self, or is it merely a connection to Social Security and other official doings?
Soren Kierkegaard professes, "Once you label me, you negate me." Might we have the right to describe ourselves.
The Washington Post. Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Smith and Lou Cannon. The Washington Post. Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Posted by Betsy L.
Angert on January 14, 2007 at 07:50 PM in , , , , , , |
Couples, Communication and Caring ©
In a nation where forty plus, fifty, or sixty percent of marriages end in divorce, [depending who whose statistics you trust] the topic of companionship and connections is a must. In a country where many are separated, where children are left alone, and families are not intact, the quality of relationships is a necessary consideration. This week, the New York Times addressed this concern in two articles, and .I, as many do, have an active interest in this matter. Yesterday, I spoke with an acquaintance. She seems to be happy in her current relationship; she says she is.
I remember when her beau was a source of great stress. Jess was involved in his work and Lisa wanted him to be concerned with her. She tried and tried to change what was.
Lisa turned to other men; Jess was upset. Still, transformation was slow in coming. The relationship came and went, repeatedly.
Now the two are one, or are they?
In my conversation with Lisa last evening, I learned Jess is planning to move in to Lisa's home. She is elated.
They spend their night's together daily. I was told, "All is well." Yet, Lisa is distressed.
Work is her worry. When with Jess, she does not mention her personal struggles. She pretends everything is just fine.
Lisa labors long hours. She is miserable in her job. Lisa took this position for money was a problem.
It still is though she is surviving. When with Jess, this lovely lady does not let on.
Every night, Lisa dashes to the grocery store immediately after she clocks out.
All within a single hour, she drives home quickly, cooks, showers, dresses for dinner and then awaits her love. He arrives promptly; they dine together and "talk." He knows her life is a whirlwind.
She says nothing. She is content to share his company.
I wonder; will his "caring" companionship be enough as time goes on.
I acknowledge that life is made up of so much more than the little things. My own experience tells me that what might seem small when left unattended swells.
I know this for I too have stayed silent when I needed or wanted to speak.
I did not, do not wish to be known by those I was or am most intimate with. The gentlemen I yearned to share my life with are or were the ones I feared most. There was nothing frightening about these men.
Actually, they were each sensitive souls. The reason for my apprehension, I am not fully comfortable when in a warm personal male/female relationship. I am anxious, thinking of the inevitable separations.
I am concerned. Will I lose myself?
There seem to be so many expectations and obligations.
Additionally, on perhaps above all, I recall my parents' It occurred ten days after their twentieth anniversary. I was eight at the time of their initial separation. The memory lives large.
I can recount the conversation that seemingly caused my Mom to leave. I remember it as though it took place minutes ago. My Mom attests to my account.
that reality runs deep.
people aged 15 and over in the United States in 2000:
120.2 million, or 54. 4 percent, were now married;
41.0 million, or 18.5 percent, were widowed, divorced or separated; and
59. 9 million, or 27.1 percent, were never married.
From Census 2000.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 questionnaire.
Nevertheless, much as it confuses me, hard as I worked to stay safe and far away from entangling emotional connections, my relationships were and are close. I was and am fortunate. The men in my life are extremely communicative and desirous of knowing who I am, what I think, feel, do, and want.
They asked. They listened to my answers. They accepted my thinking, and most of all they appreciated me.
In the present, the same is true. Caring, calm, complete communication; what a concept! It is a strange construct to many; perchance alien to most.
I recognize that when a problem exists it is because, I [or they] do not speak directly. I or we hide what hurts or what we fear will prompt rejection. Consistently I am reminded that if I speak faithfully with sensitivity there is empathy and understanding.
I have ample reason to believe communication and authentic care make a huge difference in the quality of what comes. Still, I struggle, [as does Lisa.]
Much as I resist, the gents I have known encouraged me to speak of everything.
The one in my life now does the same. Typically, this is what I do; I tell all, unless the threat of a fully intimate rapport grabs me. Then I run, or at least I close my mouth.
For whatever reason, there are those that wish to be part of my daily life, just as I believe Jess wishes to be part of Lisa's life. They accept me as I am, though I do not often truly appreciate myself. Might this be true in Lisa's relationship?
Recently, I was told I could be myself fully, be free to do as I already do. I would not need to cater to the other and sacrifice my own time and efforts. Could this possibly be?
Will the prospect last? Conceivably, Lisa heard similar statements.
Might I again review what is truth for most and was for me?
I recall Lisa was married once before. She was braver than I. Lisa may be hesitant now.
As an adult, she lived what I avoided. I felt what she did as a child. We both suffered through our divorces,
I sigh as I read, reflect, and relate. Some say counseling is the cure for what may ail a couple. Premarital therapy will quell the rising trend.
More and more social scientists are concluding that divorce is hurting American society and devastating the lives of children.
American society may have erased the stigma that once accompanied divorce, but it can no longer ignore divorce's massive effects. As social scientists track successive generations of American children whose parents have ended their marriages, the data are leading even some once-staunch supporters to conclude that divorce is hurting American society and devastating children's lives. Its effects are obvious in family life, educational attainment, job stability, income potential, physical, and emotional health, drug use, and crime.
Each year, over one million American children suffer as their parents divorce. Moreover, half of all children born in wedlock this year will see their parents divorce before reaching their eighteenth birthday. This fact alone should give policymakers and those whose careers focus on children reason for pause.
Social science research is showing that the effects of divorce continue into adulthood and affect the next generation of children as well. If the effects are indeed demonstrable, grave, and long lasting, then something must be done to protect children and the nation from these consequences. Reversing the effects of divorce will entail nothing less than a cultural shift in attitude, if not a cultural revolution, because society still embraces divorce in its laws and popular culture, sending out myriad messages that "it's okay."
It is not. Mounting evidence in the annals of scientific journals details the plight of the children of divorce. It clearly indicates that divorce has lasting effects which spill over into every aspect of life.
Others think prenuptial agreements will counter that oft expressed quandary of financial concerns. Many think sex before the wedding will indicate whether or not a couple is compatible.
I believe what is a concern does not occur only during matrimony.
I observe that numerous individuals do as I sometimes do. They speak indirectly, if at all. What causes people the greatest pain is not knowing, not feeling understood, being ignored, or ignorance of feelings.
Those we are fond of are frequently the last to know what is within us. For me, caring, calm, casual, clear, and complete is the only treatment for what troubles today's couples.
I recall an essay I read in Psychology Today as a child.
The authors focused on how well we truly know the ones we claim to love. They noted how little was said, how much went unspoken. I never forgot the treatise.
However, it seems obvious, many failed to memorize the authors' message, or they never read it. Since my youth, the permanency of partnerships plummets. People physically unite; yet, they do not allow themselves to be together.
They talk and never say much.
The New York Times realizes that this topic is no less a concern than it was decades ago. This periodical appeals to its readers.
Please peruse this short and sweet article. Those that need this offering most may have missed it. I share it here for your assessment, Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying.
I invite you to comment, to tell your story, and express your experience. We all have much to learn.
Hmmm? Have you discussed these issues with your mate, your partner, the person you call your pal. Do you dare?
Relationship experts report that too many couples fail to ask each other critical questions before marrying.Here are a few key ones that couples should consider asking:
1) Have we discussed whether to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?
2) Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?
3) Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement, on who will manage the chores?
4) Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?
5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?
6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences, and fears?
7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?
8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?
9) Have we reached a clear understanding of each other’s spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?
10) Do we like and respect each other’s friends?
11) Do we value and respect each other’s parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?
12) What does my family do that annoys you?
13) Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?
14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?
15) Do each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?
What will happen if you authentically? Might the dynamics of your relationship change? Oh no, could divorce be on the horizon!
?
I wonder, why do so few of us share sincerely with those we sleep with?
Meeting of the Minds, Bodies, Heart and Soul, Sources .
. .
Copage. New York Times. December 17, 2006
S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 questionnaire.
The World I October 2000
By Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 20, 2006 at 05:40 PM in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Written December 9, 2006 Yesterday was a day in memorial. Many remembered and honored the life and passing of musician, composer John Lennon.
Throughout the day, I found myself singing the Lennon tune "Imagine." I often do "Imagine all the people living life in peace." I speak of this vision.
I write of it faithfully. Many think my thoughts are silly and they say so. I might remark as John Lennon himself did, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one." Thus, a committee was formed. In 1946, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights composed of 18 Member States was developed.
Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the congregation. This group of dignitaries set out to craft a doctrine that addressed human rights concerns. Two years later, they completed and adopted Mrs.
Roosevelt stated, "It is not a treaty...
[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta." Ah, were this so.
Since its inception, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been in dispute.
The United States has been among its greatest critics. This nation refuses to ratify this document. American leaders resist the connection between rights and responsibilities.
The articles of this nonbinding "law" allow for the following provisions. Actually, they offer more "power to the people." In this treatise, I will focus on the first articles of the declaration and contrast these with what is occurring in America.
There is so much more to assess; I could write a tomes. There are volumes worthy of presenting. However, in this essay I offer only a flavor.
Taste what we as a nation do, and ask yourself, are these deeds palatable.
~ The freedom of all. Children are born as equals.
They are free and should be treated in the same way. Humans have reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a friendly manner.
Associated Press.MSNBC.
May 9, 2006. America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.
Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia's rate is 6 per 1,000.
"We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the health care they need," said Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for the U.S.-based Save the Children, which compiled the rankings based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.
"Every time I see these kinds of statistics, I'm always amazed to see where the United States is because we are a country that prides itself on having such advanced medical care and developing new technology ... and new approaches to treating illness.
But at the same time not everybody has access to those new technologies," said Dr. Mark Schuster, a Rand Co. researcher and pediatrician with the University of California, Los Angeles.
~ a different sex
Why women are still paid less than men. By Evelyn Murphy and E.J.Graff. Boston Globe. October 9, 2005.
If you are a woman working full time, you will lose between $700,000 and $2 million over your working lifetime -- just because of your sex. Is that fair? No.
Can it be stopped? Absolutely.
But today, 40 years later, the wage gap stands at 23 cents.Women working full time -- not part-time, not on maternity leave, not as consultants -- still earn only 77 cents to a full-time workingman's dollar. That's an enormous gap, and it has been stalled in place for more than a decade. It's not closing on its own.
It affects women at every economic level, from waitresses to lawyers, from cashiers to CEOs.
~ a different skin colour
ZNet Magazine. January 19, 2004.Although the information, taken mostly from the US Census and the Federal Reserve, has been publicly available for years, few reports have pulled all the disparate pieces together. "The State of the Dream 2004," released last week by United for a Fair Economy, challenges traditional notions about the success of the civil rights movement in the past 30 years. United for a Fair Economy is a nonprofit organization that focuses on highlighting income and other economic disparities in American society.
Among the more disturbing findings: Unemployment among blacks is more than double that for whites, 10.8 percent versus 5.2 percent in 2003 -- a wider gap than in 1972.Black infant mortality is also greater today than in 1970. In 2001, the black infant mortality rate was 14 deaths per 1,000 live births, 146 percent higher than the white rate. The gap in infant mortality rates was 37 percent less in 1970.
Black Americans have also made little progress compared to whites in terms of income. According to the report, for every dollar of white income, African Americans had 55 cents in 1968. Thirty-three years later, in 2001, the gap had only closed by two cents.The report notes that, at this pace, it would take 581 years to achieve income parity.
According to the report, the average black college graduate will earn $500,000 less in his or her lifetime than an average white college graduate. Black high school graduates working full-time from age 25 to 64, will earn $300,000 less on average.
~ speaking a different language
Official English and anti-bilingual education bills introduced. By James Crawford. November 11, 2006.English Only legislation first appeared in 1981 as a constitutional English Language Amendment. This proposal, if approved by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, would have banned virtually all uses of languages other than English by federal, state, and local governments. But the measure has never come to a Congressional vote, even in committee.
Since 1981, 22 states have adopted various forms of Official English legislation, in addition to four that had already done so. Subtracting Hawaii's (which is officially bilingual) and Alaska (whose English-only initiative has been declared unconstitutional) leaves a total of 24 states with active Official English laws.
~ thinking different things
Cable News Network. April 20, 2005. For example, under the act the government can monitor an individual's Web surfing records. It can use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped.It can access Internet service provider records. And it can even monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.
After September 11, 2001, when the act was passed, the executive argued that these broader powers would be used to put terrorists behind bars.In fact, several of the act's provisions can be used to gain information about Americans in the context of investigations with no demonstrated link to terrorism.
~ believing in another religion
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. May 11, 2006.The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
~ owning more or less
By Lisa Schlein.Voice of America. December 10, 2006 The United Nations chose poverty as this year's theme for Human Rights day because, it says, poverty is both a cause and a product of human rights violations. It says the poor are more likely to have their rights denied, and to be victims of discrimination and persecution.
Mac Darrow, of the U.N. Human Rights Office, says that over the last decade, poverty has come to be seen as a human rights issue, rather than just an economic issue.He says, research shows poor people suffer from a wide-range of civil and political rights violations. "Lack of access to adequate schooling. Lack of personal security.
Lack of ability to participate in public affairs or community level decision-making bodies - really, a very integrated and multi-faceted vision of dis-empowerment. And, this and like research has driven international development agencies to understand poverty as precisely that, as about social exclusion, about issues of access to political power, economic power and discrimination," he said.
~ being born in another social group
A Guide Through the American Status System.By Paul Fussell. Public Broadcasting Service [PBS]. Despite our public embraces of political and judicial equality, in individual perception and understanding - much of which we refrain from publicizing - we arrange things vertically and insist on crucial differences in value.
Regardless of what we say about equality, I think everyone at some point comes to feel like the Oscar Wilde who said, "The brotherhood of man is not a mere poet's dream: it is a most depressing and humiliating reality." It's as if in our hear of hearts we don't want agglomerations but distinctions. Analysis and separation we find interesting, synthesis boring.
Although it is disinclined to designate a hierarchy of social classes, the federal government seems to admit that if in law we are all equal, in virtually all other ways we are not. Thus the eighteen grades into which it divides its civil-servant employees, from grade 1 at the bottom (messenger, etc.) up through 2 (mail clerk), 5 (secretary), 9 (chemist), to 14 (legal administrator), and finally 16, 17, and 18 (high level administrators).In the construction business there's a social hierarchy of jobs, with "dirt work," or mere excavation, at the bottom; the making of sewers, roads, and tunnels in the middle; and work on buildings (the taller, the higher) at the top. Those who sell "executive desks" and related office furniture know that they and their clients agree on a rigid "class" hierarchy. Desks made of oak are at the bottom, and those of walnut are next.
Then, moving up, mahogany is, if you like, "upper middle class," until we arrive, finally, at the apex: teak. In the army, at ladies' social functions, pouring the coffee is the prerogative of the senior officer's wife because, as the ladies all know, coffee outranks tea.
~ coming from another country
USA Today. December 15, 2005. The House acted Friday to stem the tide of illegal immigration by taking steps to tighten border controls and stop unlawful immigrants from getting jobs. But lawmakers left for next year the tougher issue of what to do with the 11 million undocumented people already in the country.
The House legislation, billed as a border protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration control act, includes such measures as enlisting military and local law enforcement help in stopping illegal entrants and requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers. It authorizes the building of a fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Oh, I could go on. Suffice to say America has problems endorsing what it chooses not to practice.
According to U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "a letter to
Kirkpatrick states, "Neither nature, experience, nor probability informs these lists of 'entitlements', which are subject to no constraints except those of the mind and appetite of their authors.
" Apparently to her and to many, preventing illness by providing preventative medicine is not a universal responsibility. Medical services are not a right. In a world, or a nation of equals, we are not.
Affluent persons such as Kirkpatrick claim, a person either has the means to fend for him or herself, or they do not. This former Socialist has concluded we each need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, whether we can afford them or not.
For me, Former Attorney General, As you read of Iraq, please notice, Ramsey Clark is not discussing our more recent decision to obliterate this nation with bombs.
He is speaking of the period prior to our unilateral attack. When evaluating The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Clark declared,
The United States government pays lip service to the Declaration, but its courts have consistently refused to enforce its provisions reasoning it is not a legally binding treaty, or contract, but only a declaration. This ignores the fact that international law recognizes the provisions of the Declaration as being incorporated into customary international law, which is binding on all nations.
The most fundamental, dangerous, and harmful violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on its fifteenth birthday is economic sanctions imposed on entire populations. The United States alone blockades eleven million Cubans in the face of the most recent General Assembly resolution approved by 157 nations condemning the blockade, with only the United States and Israel in opposition. The entire population of Cuba and every Cuban has had the "right to a standard of living adequate for health and well being... including food, clothing, housing and medical care" deliberately violated by the United States blockade.
Security Council sanctions against Iraq, which are forced by the United States, have devastated the entire nation, taking the lives of more than 1,500,000 people, mostly infants, children, chronically ill and elderly, and harming millions more by hunger, sickness and sorrow. The sanctions destroy the "dignity and rights" of the people of Iraq and are the most extreme form of "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," which are prohibited by the Declaration.
Despite the cruelest destruction of the most basic human rights and liberties of all the people in Iraq, including rights to medicine, safe drinking water and sufficient food, the United States government, with the major mass media in near perfect harmony, proclaims itself the world's champion of liberty and human rights.The problem as Lincoln surely knew is not merely one of definitions. It is a problem of power, will, and accountability. The United States intends to have its way and serve its own interests, with Iraq, Cuba, Libya, Iran, the Sudan and many other countries whatever the consequences to the liberties and rights of those who live there.
At the same time, the United States increases its own staggeringly large prison industry, more than a million persons confined, including 40% of all African American males between 17 and 27 years old in the State of California. Simultaneously the U.S.spends more on its military than the ten largest military budgets of other nations combined, sells most of the arms and sophisticated weapons still increasing worldwide while rejecting an international convention to prohibit land mines and an international court of criminal justice. And the U.S.
maintains and deploys the great majority of all weapons of mass destruction existent on earth, nuclear, chemical, biological and the most deadly of all -- economic sanctions.
For me, my Mom practiced the philosophy of Universal Human Rights best. A woman that did not yell or scream would raise her voice in frustration when she felt violated.
We knew she was hurting when she declared, "I have rights!" Numerous individuals do. When we do not honor human rights, reactive behaviors persist.
Thus, I invite us to consider as my Mom lived. She professed, "No one has the right to tell you what you should think, say, do, feel, or be;" and "Do what ever makes you happen as long as it does not hurt another." These principles work in tandem.
They allow for a sense of community and connection. There is an understanding that we are one; yet separate. The philosophy establishes an authentic equality.
Our household beliefs bestow reciprocal reverence.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does the same. This document affords all beings in America and elsewhere what the Constitution and the courts do not.
Unless or until we, the people, take an active stand. Therefore, I invite you to consider what was novel to me, a canon of unity. Please consider that crime comes from chaos.
People that are tired, hungry, ill, and hurting lash out. They, just as my Mom did, seek the rights and privileges other have.
I invite you to envision as experts once did, a world where all people are truly equal and treated as such.
Please contemplate a planet where the principle of free speech, due process, economic, and social rights are honored. Conceive of a global village where the right to health care and housing are realities, not for a select few but for every human being. Visualize a place where the ability to organize is not shunned, but welcomed.
Imagine receiving a living wage, no matter your race, religion, gender, educational expertise, or station in life. It is possible to dream the impossible dream and then act on it? I think it is!
Graff. Boston Globe. October 9, 2005
January 19, 2004
Voice of America. December 10, 2006
Public Broadcasting Service [PBS].
Utopia. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Lives and Dies ©
Written December 9, 2006Yesterday was a day in memorial.
Many remembered and honored the life and passing of musician, composer John Lennon. Throughout the day, I found myself singing the Lennon tune "Imagine." I often do "Imagine all the people living life in peace.
" I speak of this vision. I write of it faithfully. Many think my thoughts are silly and they say so.
I might remark as John Lennon himself did, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one."
Today, I discovered others believed as I do long before I was born.
Many post-World War II people were impelled to reflect on human rights and the atrocities individuals and groups imposed on one another. It was determined poverty, such as that found in Germany prior to Hitler's rule, leaves people vulnerable and hurting. In such a state, they are likely to aggress.
The recognized since we, worldwide live on one planet together, and with thanks to the advent of technological miracles we are no longer separate entities, the seas no longer divided us, we must work in unison to create global peace. We as a civilization were mobile. We were and are connected worldwide.
They concluded and I concur we must honor this reality.
Thus, a committee was formed. In 1946, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights composed of 18 Member States was developed.
Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the congregation. This group of dignitaries set out to craft a doctrine that addressed human rights concerns. Two years later, they completed and adopted Mrs.
Roosevelt stated, "It is not a treaty...
[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta." Ah, were this so.
Since its inception, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been in dispute.
The United States has been among its greatest critics. This nation refuses to ratify this document. American leaders resist the connection between rights and responsibilities.
The articles of this nonbinding "law" allow for the following provisions. Actually, they offer more "power to the people." In this treatise, I will focus on the first articles of the declaration and contrast these with what is occurring in America.
There is so much more to assess; I could write a tomes. There are volumes worthy of presenting. However, in this essay I offer only a flavor.
Taste what we as a nation do, and ask yourself, are these deeds palatable.
~ The freedom of all. Children are born as equals.
They are free and should be treated in the same way. Humans have reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a friendly manner.
Associated Press.MSNBC.
May 9, 2006. America may be the world’s superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.
Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia’s rate is 6 per 1,000.
“We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the health care they need,” said Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for the U.S.-based Save the Children, which compiled the rankings based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.
The U.S. ranking is driven partly by racial and income health care disparities. Among U.
S. blacks, there are 9 deaths per 1,000 live births, closer to rates in developing nations than to those in the industrialized world.
“Every time I see these kinds of statistics, I’m always amazed to see where the United States is because we are a country that prides itself on having such advanced medical care and developing new technology ... and new approaches to treating illness.
But at the same time not everybody has access to those new technologies,” said Dr. Mark Schuster, a Rand Co. researcher and pediatrician with the University of California, Los Angeles.
~ a different sex
Why women are still paid less than men. By Evelyn Murphy and E.J.Graff. Boston Globe. October 9, 2005.
If you are a woman working full time, you will lose between $700,000 and $2 million over your working lifetime -- just because of your sex. Is that fair? No.
Can it be stopped? Absolutely.
In 1964, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act that banned workplace discrimination based on race or sex, women working full time made 59 cents to a full-time working man's dollar.That made sense at the time: As a group, women had less education, less experience, and less opportunity, in part because they were flatly banned from a wide range of occupations. At the time, many people thought the wage gap would close on its own, as the education, experience, and opportunity gaps went away.
But today, 40 years later, the wage gap stands at 23 cents.Women working full time -- not part-time, not on maternity leave, not as consultants -- still earn only 77 cents to a full-time workingman's dollar. That's an enormous gap, and it has been stalled in place for more than a decade. It's not closing on its own.
It affects women at every economic level, from waitresses to lawyers, from cashiers to CEOs.
~ a different skin colour
ZNet Magazine. January 19, 2004.Although the information, taken mostly from the US Census and the Federal Reserve, has been publicly available for years, few reports have pulled all the disparate pieces together. "The State of the Dream 2004," released last week by United for a Fair Economy, challenges traditional notions about the success of the civil rights movement in the past 30 years. United for a Fair Economy is a nonprofit organization that focuses on highlighting income and other economic disparities in American society.
"These findings contradict the basic values of our country," said report co-author Betsy Leondar-Wright, who called the disparities "shocking and unacceptable."
Among the more disturbing findings: Unemployment among blacks is more than double that for whites, 10.8 percent versus 5.2 percent in 2003 -- a wider gap than in 1972. Black infant mortality is also greater today than in 1970. In 2001, the black infant mortality rate was 14 deaths per 1,000 live births, 146 percent higher than the white rate.
The gap in infant mortality rates was 37 percent less in 1970.
Black Americans have also made little progress compared to whites in terms of income. According to the report, for every dollar of white income, African Americans had 55 cents in 1968.Thirty-three years later, in 2001, the gap had only closed by two cents. The report notes that, at this pace, it would take 581 years to achieve income parity.
According to the report, the average black college graduate will earn $500,000 less in his or her lifetime than an average white college graduate.Black high school graduates working full-time from age 25 to 64, will earn $300,000 less on average.
~ speaking a different language
Official English and anti-bilingual education bills introduced. By James Crawford.November 11, 2006. English Only legislation first appeared in 1981 as a constitutional English Language Amendment. This proposal, if approved by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, would have banned virtually all uses of languages other than English by federal, state, and local governments.
But the measure has never come to a Congressional vote, even in committee.
Since 1981, 22 states have adopted various forms of Official English legislation, in addition to four that had already done so. Subtracting Hawaii's (which is officially bilingual) and Alaska (whose English-only initiative has been declared unconstitutional) leaves a total of 24 states with active Official English laws.
~ thinking different things
Cable News Network. April 20, 2005. For example, under the act the government can monitor an individual's Web surfing records.It can use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped. It can access Internet service provider records. And it can even monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.
After September 11, 2001, when the act was passed, the executive argued that these broader powers would be used to put terrorists behind bars. In fact, several of the act's provisions can be used to gain information about Americans in the context of investigations with no demonstrated link to terrorism.
~ believing in another religion
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.May 11, 2006. The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
"
~ owning more or less
By Lisa Schlein. Voice of America. December 10, 2006 The United Nations chose poverty as this year's theme for Human Rights day because, it says, poverty is both a cause and a product of human rights violations.It says the poor are more likely to have their rights denied, and to be victims of discrimination and persecution.
Mac Darrow, of the U.N.Human Rights Office, says that over the last decade, poverty has come to be seen as a human rights issue, rather than just an economic issue. He says, research shows poor people suffer from a wide-range of civil and political rights violations. "Lack of access to adequate schooling.
Lack of personal security. Lack of ability to participate in public affairs or community level decision-making bodies - really, a very integrated and multi-faceted vision of dis-empowerment. And, this and like research has driven international development agencies to understand poverty as precisely that, as about social exclusion, about issues of access to political power, economic power and discrimination," he said.
~ being born in another social group
A Guide Through the American Status System. By Paul Fussell. Public Broadcasting Service [PBS].Despite our public embraces of political and judicial equality, in individual perception and understanding - much of which we refrain from publicizing - we arrange things vertically and insist on crucial differences in value. Regardless of what we say about equality, I think everyone at some point comes to feel like the Oscar Wilde who said, "The brotherhood of man is not a mere poet's dream: it is a most depressing and humiliating reality." It's as if in our hear of hearts we don't want agglomerations but distinctions.
Analysis and separation we find interesting, synthesis boring.
Although it is disinclined to designate a hierarchy of social classes, the federal government seems to admit that if in law we are all equal, in virtually all other ways we are not. Thus the eighteen grades into which it divides its civil-servant employees, from grade 1 at the bottom (messenger, etc.) up through 2 (mail clerk), 5 (secretary), 9 (chemist), to 14 (legal administrator), and finally 16, 17, and 18 (high level administrators). In the construction business there's a social hierarchy of jobs, with "dirt work," or mere excavation, at the bottom; the making of sewers, roads, and tunnels in the middle; and work on buildings (the taller, the higher) at the top. Those who sell "executive desks" and related office furniture know that they and their clients agree on a rigid "class" hierarchy.
Desks made of oak are at the bottom, and those of walnut are next. Then, moving up, mahogany is, if you like, "upper middle class," until we arrive, finally, at the apex: teak. In the army, at ladies' social functions, pouring the coffee is the prerogative of the senior officer's wife because, as the ladies all know, coffee outranks tea.
~ coming from another country
USA Today. December 15, 2005. The House acted Friday to stem the tide of illegal immigration by taking steps to tighten border controls and stop unlawful immigrants from getting jobs.But lawmakers left for next year the tougher issue of what to do with the 11 million undocumented people already in the country.
The House legislation, billed as a border protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration control act, includes such measures as enlisting military and local law enforcement help in stopping illegal entrants and requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers. It authorizes the building of a fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Oh, I could go on.
Suffice to say America has problems endorsing what it chooses not to practice. According to U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "a letter to Santa Claus."
Kirkpatrick states, "Neither nature, experience, nor probability informs these lists of 'entitlements', which are subject to no constraints except those of the mind and appetite of their authors." Apparently to her and to many, preventing illness by providing preventative medicine is not a universal responsibility.
Medical services are not a right. In a world, or a nation of equals, we are not. Affluent persons such as Kirkpatrick claim, a person either has the means to fend for him or herself, or they do not.
This former Socialist has concluded we each need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, whether we can afford them or not.
She, in the Reagan tradition, ignores that people are not treated equally and therefore do not have equal opportunities.
For me, Former Attorney General, a href=http://www.
thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/RClark_50thAnnivUDHR.html>Ramsey Clark said it well.
As you read of Iraq, please notice, Ramsey Clark is not discussing our more recent decision to obliterate this nation with bombs. He is speaking of the period prior to our unilateral attack. When evaluating The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Clark declared,
The United States government pays lip service to the Declaration, but its courts have consistently refused to enforce its provisions reasoning it is not a legally binding treaty, or contract, but only a declaration.This ignores the fact that international law recognizes the provisions of the Declaration as being incorporated into customary international law, which is binding on all nations.
The most fundamental, dangerous, and harmful violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on its fifteenth birthday is economic sanctions imposed on entire populations. The United States alone blockades eleven million Cubans in the face of the most recent General Assembly resolution approved by 157 nations condemning the blockade, with only the United States and Israel in opposition.The entire population of Cuba and every Cuban has had the "right to a standard of living adequate for health and well being...
including food, clothing, housing and medical care" deliberately violated by the United States blockade.
Security Council sanctions against Iraq, which are forced by the United States, have devastated the entire nation, taking the lives of more than 1,500,000 people, mostly infants, children, chronically ill and elderly, and harming millions more by hunger, sickness and sorrow. The sanctions destroy the "dignity and rights" of the people of Iraq and are the most extreme form of "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," which are prohibited by the Declaration.
Despite the cruelest destruction of the most basic human rights and liberties of all the people in Iraq, including rights to medicine, safe drinking water and sufficient food, the United States government, with the major mass media in near perfect harmony, proclaims itself the world's champion of liberty and human rights. The problem as Lincoln surely knew is not merely one of definitions. It is a problem of power, will, and accountability.The United States intends to have its way and serve its own interests, with Iraq, Cuba, Libya, Iran, the Sudan and many other countries whatever the consequences to the liberties and rights of those who live there.
The United States control over and its concerted action with the mass media enables it to demonize such countries, its victims, for "terrorism," threats to world peace and human rights violations at the very time it rains Tomahawk cruise missiles on them and motivates and finances armed insurrections and violence against them.
At the same time, the United States increases its own staggeringly large prison industry, more than a million persons confined, including 40% of all African American males between 17 and 27 years old in the State of California.Simultaneously the U.S. spends more on its military than the ten largest military budgets of other nations combined, sells most of the arms and sophisticated weapons still increasing worldwide while rejecting an international convention to prohibit land mines and an international court of criminal justice.
And the U.S. maintains and deploys the great majority of all weapons of mass destruction existent on earth, nuclear, chemical, biological and the most deadly of all -- economic sanctions.
For me, my Mom practiced the philosophy of Universal Human Rights best. A woman that did not yell or scream would raise her voice in frustration when she felt violated. We knew she was hurting when she declared, "I have rights!
" Numerous individuals do. When we do not honor human rights, reactive behaviors persist.
Thus, I invite us to consider as my Mom lived.
She professed, "No one has the right to tell you what you should think, say, do, feel, or be;" and "Do what ever makes you happen as long as it does not hurt another." These principles work in tandem. They allow for a sense of community and connection.
There is an understanding that we are one; yet separate. The philosophy establishes an authentic equality. Our household beliefs bestow reciprocal reverence.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does the same. This document affords all beings in America and elsewhere what the Constitution and the courts do not. Unless or until we, the people, take an active stand.
Therefore, I invite you to consider what was novel to me, a canon of unity. Please consider that crime comes from chaos. People that are tired, hungry, ill, and hurting lash out.
They, just as my Mom did, seek the rights and privileges other have.
I propose that if we practice what we preach strength, solidarity, safety, security, and sanity will exist for everyone on Earth.
I invite you to envision as experts once did, a world where all people are truly equal and treated as such.
Please contemplate a planet where the principle of free speech, due process, economic, and social rights are honored. Conceive of a global village where the right to health care and housing are realities, not for a select few but for every human being. Visualize a place where the ability to organize is not shunned, but welcomed.
Imagine receiving a living wage, no matter your race, religion, gender, educational expertise, or station in life. It is possible to dream the impossible dream and then act on it? I think it is!
Graff. Boston Globe. October 9, 2005
January 19, 2004
Voice of America. December 10, 2006
Public Broadcasting Service [PBS].
Posted by Betsy L.
Angert on December 10, 2006 at 12:28 PM in , , , , , , , , , | Once you label me, you negate me. An article in the New York Times grabbed my attention instantly. It appeared in the health section.
The title, This writing was heartfelt. tells a gripping tale. It took me to memories of my own struggle with anorexia and bulimia and how these affected my family.
In this exposé, the dilemma of how to treat the condition was thoroughly discussed. I wish to share my response to this situation and story. My personal experience of this is vast.
I hope my thoughts, realizations, and rejoinders on this topic will be helpful to those grappling with similar issues. I trust that the effects of and are trials and tribulations for all those afflicted by these. The subject of alone is a sensitive probing.
An individual need not starve, binge, or purge in wrestling with weight. On the same day another New York Times essay loomed large entitled This commentary contemplated the plight of being "fat." I was once that too.
Many may muse in this moment, all anorexics believe they are chubby, and while that may or may not be true, I actually was at times in my life. My weight rarely was stable; nor was I when reflecting upon it. However, my weight was never the issue; it was a distraction, a symptom of what was within.
I read the articles mentioned above, then, when I turned on the television and saw a report on the increasing population, and as I listened to a discussion focusing on the media, and the message of being thin, I wondered. Why are and avoiding the truer concern? Americans on books, diet programs, professional weight trainers, and behavioral experts that might deliver them from "evil" otherwise known as Some recount, "I eat too much," others muse, "I eat too little.
" There are those that think they do not make healthy choices, those that believe themselves fine; their family worries about their physical condition.
I lived in a plump body; a buff body, a slender body, and one that was sickly thin. As a child I over ate.
News RSS