Food for Thought
The day I met my husband, he came over to my apartment and invited me out to eat. My response to him was: “I don’t do food.” He said, “Oh, I’m a chef.” We laughed and the rest is history. I really didn’t do food. I was in the habit of fasting regularly, up to a month at a time and rarely had more than an instant breakfast in an entire day. I still live primarily on only an instant breakfast a day with the exception of Sundays.
It’s not that I don’t know how to cook. My parents divorced when I was twelve and I was left home alone with blank checks made out to the local grocery store and cupboards full of cookbooks and recipe boxes. I became so good a cook my sister used to have me come over to her house every time she would have a date come for dinner and prepare the meal before her date arrived so that he would not know she could not cook. My future brother in law was in for a great shock when they finally got married as he was accustomed to my cooking and it was a great effort for my sister to make a box of macaroni and cheese properly. We still tease her mercilessly to this day. Over their 30 year marriage, she has learned to do a little of the cooking but he is still the primary cook in the home.
Being married to a chef is sort of like being married to a brain surgeon in a way. People automatically assume that I am incompetent at my husband’s profession merely because of the status he has acquired. I don’t imagine too many wives of brain surgeons are invited in to help out in the operating room either; however, those who knew me before I married always thought of me as the best cook they had ever known. One doesn’t have to like eating to love cooking.
As a result of my reputation within my family, and the fact that my husband is tired of cooking by the time he finally has a day off, I still remain the primary cook at home; however, food is something we only do on Sundays when my parents come for a large family dinner. 3:00 Sunday dinner has not been missed in uncountable Sundays regardless of external circumstances. Whether I am making an International selection of foods or simply slow roasted au jus sandwiches, my parents bring a giant batch of instant mix coleslaw with sauce and dinner and a movie night begins.
As my parents are British, our meals are missing the typical carbohydrates and casseroles that American’s eat. They consist of a meat entrée, a vegetable dish and…COLE SLAW!!!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Political Science Summaries 6
Political Science Summaries 6
Howard Zinn Passionate Declarations
Chapter 6: Law and Justice
In Chapter 6 Zinn discusses the difference between law and justice. The chapter offers a quote from a speech made by a student at Harvard Law School during the tumultuous 1960’s Cold War era.
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! Danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive."
After prolonged applause the student quietly informed the audience, “These words were spoken in 1932 by Adolf Hitler” (109). And so Zinn delves us into the deep question of knowing the difference between law and justice and looking at when it becomes time to disobey law for the sake of justice. Will we continue in our Machiavellian realism, allowing our government to be both the lion and the fox, or will will take one more long look back at our Declaration of Independence and remember as in suggests, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” for all citizens, “these are the ends” and “government is only a means” to these ends (109).
Zinn looks at the purpose of civil disobedience – “the deliberate violation of a law for a social purpose” (107). We are mindlessly taught at such a young age to recite the Pledge of Allegiance “one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all”. There’s that word again: all. Zinn proposes the question: “are rich and poor treated equally? Blacks and whites? Foreign born and native? Conservatives and radicals? Private citizens and government officials?” (113). John Adams, our nations second president, proposed that the ‘rule of law’ was greater than the ‘rule of men’, claiming it to “be impersonal, neutral, apply equally to all, and, therefore, democratic” (110). At what point in our nations history have we ever promoted, let alone enforced “liberty and justice for all”? The wealthy, white, governing officials are not even bound by law. How many of our presidents have broken innumerable laws without consequence, let alone carry out mass murder in innumerable third world countries without repercussion or responsibility. Our current president claims he is not bound by the laws of this nation as we are in a state of war. Who declared this state of war? The people? No, therefore, form whence has this power come? “Historically, the most terrible things – war, genocide, and slavery – have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience” (129). How long will the masses stand by silently as these crimes against humanity are ‘lawfully’ committed? Zinn refers to the double standard of our government that will treat the burning of pieces of paper (draft cards) as an act of violence, “while dropping 7 million tons of bombs on Southeast Asia (twice as many as were dropped in all theatres of operation in World War II)” (143). He quotes Father Berrigan of the ‘Catonsville Nine’:
“Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead of children…We could not, so help us God, do otherwise…We say: killing is disorder, life and gentleness and community and unselfishness is the only order we recognize. For the sake of that order we risk our liberty, our good name. The time is past when good men can remain silent, when obedience can segregate men from public risk, when the poor can without defense” (120).
Zinn reflects on numerous like examples from the sixties dealing with both civil disobedience acts against the Vietnam War and racial segregation. He presents the right of jury nullification as a great corrective. The Circuit court of Appeals “made a remarkable statement in support of jury nullification:
We recognize…the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision” (139).
Zinn leaves us with an excellent question to ponder at the end of this very difficult chapter, “What kind of person can we admire, can we ask young people of the next generation to emulate – the strict follower of law or the dissident who struggles, sometimes within, sometimes outside, sometimes against the law, but always for justice?” (148).
Democracy Now
The Global Gag Rule
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/02/1336254
“The Bush administraton’s Mexico City Policy, known as the Global Gag Rule by opponents, denies foreign organizations receiving U.S. family planning assistance the right to use their own non-U.S. funds to perform or counsel on legal abortions or lobby for the legalization of abortion in their country. Nigerian doctor Ejike Oji says this forces foreign NGOs to choose between vital U.S. assistance for essential family planning services and the real needs of women dealing with unwanted pregnancies.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing Wednesday to illustrate the devastating impact of the Reagan-era Mexico City Policy on family planning programs and rates of unsafe abortions around the world. The Mexico City Policy, which is known as the Global Gag Rule by opponents, was rescinded by former President Clinton in 1993 but reinstated by President Bush in 2001. The policy denies foreign organizations receiving U.S. family planning assistance the right to use their own non-U.S. funds to perform or counsel on legal abortions or lobby for the legalization of abortion in their country.
Critics charge that this forces foreign NGOs to choose between vital U.S. assistance for essential family planning services and the real needs of women dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Nigeria has the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world, in large part due to unsafe abortions and lack of access to reproductive healthcare.
Dr. Ejike Oji is a Nigerian doctor and the country director of an international organization called Ipas that promotes women's reproductive rights around the world. He has spent the last 28 years fighting unsafe abortions and testified at the House Committee hearing Wednesday.”
Dr. Oji explains that 10,000 Nigerian woman die every year from illegal abortions and for every woman that dies another 20 are injured. The Global Gag Rule, originally a Reagan era law, denying any US tax dollars in foreign aid to be spent on abortion, had been abolished by Clinton in 1993, leading to far less maternal and infant mortality rates due to illegal abortions. In 2001, Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule and any organizations receiving US aid are not even allowed to mention the word abortion or discuss abortion as an option for treating an unwanted pregnancy. As Dr. Oji explains, how can a nation that allows choices for their own citizens, providing American women with safe, medical, legal abortions, treat women of other nations with such a dangerous double standard. His organization, who refused to sign the Global Gag Rule and does not receive US aid as a result. He felt the safety of Nigerian women and children was more important. As a result his organization has recently lost one of their best physicians because he is now receiving US foreign aid money and is unable to assist Dr. Oji any further as his organization is fighting to legalize safe, medical abortions for unwanted pregnancies for the women of Nigeria. The organizations that receive funding from the United States are using the funds to treat HIV and other diseases and lack the facilities to provide contraception. Due to the lack of contraception available to Nigerian women, the rate of unwanted pregnancy is staggering. Nigeria also has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world. This is largely connected to the rate of maternal deaths. When a woman with a baby at home dies, the chance of the survival of that baby are very slim. Dr. Oji must hear the words of Archbishop Tutu when he “chastised the international community for its slow response to the Darfur crisis, saying in a BBC interview, “The harsh truth is that some lives are slightly more important than others. . . If you are swarthy, of a darker hue, almost always you are going to end up at the bottom of the pile.” Which brings us back to our discussion of law and justice and equality for all. When will our country quit pretending that we extend equality to all? Here, we are presented with an enormous amount of preventable deaths and are choosing to allow them. Is that not too a crime against humanity? Is it that I am a staunch supporter of abortion, no; however, I believe, especially, in a third world country like Nigeria, why would we not provide contraception to any woman desiring it? Why would we not provide a choice to Nigerian women that we extend to the women of our own country where starvation and infant mortality are not extreme conditions?
Howard Zinn Passionate Declarations
Chapter 6: Law and Justice
In Chapter 6 Zinn discusses the difference between law and justice. The chapter offers a quote from a speech made by a student at Harvard Law School during the tumultuous 1960’s Cold War era.
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! Danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive."
After prolonged applause the student quietly informed the audience, “These words were spoken in 1932 by Adolf Hitler” (109). And so Zinn delves us into the deep question of knowing the difference between law and justice and looking at when it becomes time to disobey law for the sake of justice. Will we continue in our Machiavellian realism, allowing our government to be both the lion and the fox, or will will take one more long look back at our Declaration of Independence and remember as in suggests, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” for all citizens, “these are the ends” and “government is only a means” to these ends (109).
Zinn looks at the purpose of civil disobedience – “the deliberate violation of a law for a social purpose” (107). We are mindlessly taught at such a young age to recite the Pledge of Allegiance “one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all”. There’s that word again: all. Zinn proposes the question: “are rich and poor treated equally? Blacks and whites? Foreign born and native? Conservatives and radicals? Private citizens and government officials?” (113). John Adams, our nations second president, proposed that the ‘rule of law’ was greater than the ‘rule of men’, claiming it to “be impersonal, neutral, apply equally to all, and, therefore, democratic” (110). At what point in our nations history have we ever promoted, let alone enforced “liberty and justice for all”? The wealthy, white, governing officials are not even bound by law. How many of our presidents have broken innumerable laws without consequence, let alone carry out mass murder in innumerable third world countries without repercussion or responsibility. Our current president claims he is not bound by the laws of this nation as we are in a state of war. Who declared this state of war? The people? No, therefore, form whence has this power come? “Historically, the most terrible things – war, genocide, and slavery – have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience” (129). How long will the masses stand by silently as these crimes against humanity are ‘lawfully’ committed? Zinn refers to the double standard of our government that will treat the burning of pieces of paper (draft cards) as an act of violence, “while dropping 7 million tons of bombs on Southeast Asia (twice as many as were dropped in all theatres of operation in World War II)” (143). He quotes Father Berrigan of the ‘Catonsville Nine’:
“Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead of children…We could not, so help us God, do otherwise…We say: killing is disorder, life and gentleness and community and unselfishness is the only order we recognize. For the sake of that order we risk our liberty, our good name. The time is past when good men can remain silent, when obedience can segregate men from public risk, when the poor can without defense” (120).
Zinn reflects on numerous like examples from the sixties dealing with both civil disobedience acts against the Vietnam War and racial segregation. He presents the right of jury nullification as a great corrective. The Circuit court of Appeals “made a remarkable statement in support of jury nullification:
We recognize…the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision” (139).
Zinn leaves us with an excellent question to ponder at the end of this very difficult chapter, “What kind of person can we admire, can we ask young people of the next generation to emulate – the strict follower of law or the dissident who struggles, sometimes within, sometimes outside, sometimes against the law, but always for justice?” (148).
Democracy Now
The Global Gag Rule
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/02/1336254
“The Bush administraton’s Mexico City Policy, known as the Global Gag Rule by opponents, denies foreign organizations receiving U.S. family planning assistance the right to use their own non-U.S. funds to perform or counsel on legal abortions or lobby for the legalization of abortion in their country. Nigerian doctor Ejike Oji says this forces foreign NGOs to choose between vital U.S. assistance for essential family planning services and the real needs of women dealing with unwanted pregnancies.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing Wednesday to illustrate the devastating impact of the Reagan-era Mexico City Policy on family planning programs and rates of unsafe abortions around the world. The Mexico City Policy, which is known as the Global Gag Rule by opponents, was rescinded by former President Clinton in 1993 but reinstated by President Bush in 2001. The policy denies foreign organizations receiving U.S. family planning assistance the right to use their own non-U.S. funds to perform or counsel on legal abortions or lobby for the legalization of abortion in their country.
Critics charge that this forces foreign NGOs to choose between vital U.S. assistance for essential family planning services and the real needs of women dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Nigeria has the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world, in large part due to unsafe abortions and lack of access to reproductive healthcare.
Dr. Ejike Oji is a Nigerian doctor and the country director of an international organization called Ipas that promotes women's reproductive rights around the world. He has spent the last 28 years fighting unsafe abortions and testified at the House Committee hearing Wednesday.”
Dr. Oji explains that 10,000 Nigerian woman die every year from illegal abortions and for every woman that dies another 20 are injured. The Global Gag Rule, originally a Reagan era law, denying any US tax dollars in foreign aid to be spent on abortion, had been abolished by Clinton in 1993, leading to far less maternal and infant mortality rates due to illegal abortions. In 2001, Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule and any organizations receiving US aid are not even allowed to mention the word abortion or discuss abortion as an option for treating an unwanted pregnancy. As Dr. Oji explains, how can a nation that allows choices for their own citizens, providing American women with safe, medical, legal abortions, treat women of other nations with such a dangerous double standard. His organization, who refused to sign the Global Gag Rule and does not receive US aid as a result. He felt the safety of Nigerian women and children was more important. As a result his organization has recently lost one of their best physicians because he is now receiving US foreign aid money and is unable to assist Dr. Oji any further as his organization is fighting to legalize safe, medical abortions for unwanted pregnancies for the women of Nigeria. The organizations that receive funding from the United States are using the funds to treat HIV and other diseases and lack the facilities to provide contraception. Due to the lack of contraception available to Nigerian women, the rate of unwanted pregnancy is staggering. Nigeria also has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world. This is largely connected to the rate of maternal deaths. When a woman with a baby at home dies, the chance of the survival of that baby are very slim. Dr. Oji must hear the words of Archbishop Tutu when he “chastised the international community for its slow response to the Darfur crisis, saying in a BBC interview, “The harsh truth is that some lives are slightly more important than others. . . If you are swarthy, of a darker hue, almost always you are going to end up at the bottom of the pile.” Which brings us back to our discussion of law and justice and equality for all. When will our country quit pretending that we extend equality to all? Here, we are presented with an enormous amount of preventable deaths and are choosing to allow them. Is that not too a crime against humanity? Is it that I am a staunch supporter of abortion, no; however, I believe, especially, in a third world country like Nigeria, why would we not provide contraception to any woman desiring it? Why would we not provide a choice to Nigerian women that we extend to the women of our own country where starvation and infant mortality are not extreme conditions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
