7/2/02

Dear Friends, Colleagues and Past and Present Students WHO CARE:

Tom Brokaw, recently on Dave Letterman, reported that after his travels throughout the world since 911 he has surprising witnessed pervasive anti-US sentiment. The majority of the world, he reported, despite what happened, thinks of us as the enemy.

In that spirit, and in the hope that the United Nations remains our one hope for some kind of human evolution, I am writing you. I received the following message from a family friend, Laverne Rabinowitz, and I just accessed the site referenced and see that once again the US gives ammunition to the other UN ambassadors of the world to truly question our integrity and leadership in the world.

I don't see why we'd ratify this treaty, since we didn't ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but perhaps with the latest email technology, our united voice may impress our leadership to positive action.

Here's the message and the directions. I'm assuming that the issue has not yet been resolved (I'm late reading my email). Thanks for checking it out.

Dr. Bev Questad, Skyview High School

Letter from Laverne:

Dear Friends,

The following URL allows you a way to support the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW):

1. go to http://www.womenstreaty.org

2. clink on links, then on take action now

3. enter your name and address

4. clink on submit I received this information from my AAUW branch.

AAUW supports CEDAW, which was adopted by the UN in 1979 (!) and for which the US must still vote for or against ratification. The Senate is holding hearings this summer. It's a treaty for the rights of women, and I hope you'll agree it's deserving of support. Many thanks.

RESPONSES

1. Maria Cantwell, US Senator, http://cantwell.senate.gov/

July 3, 2002 Dr. Beverly Questad

Dear Dr. Questad: Thank you for contacting me regarding the United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). I appreciate hearing from you.

I believe in the importance of CEDAW. I am opposed to discrimination in all its forms; and I feel the United States, as a global leader, has a particular responsibility to defend human rights and actively promote tolerance and diversity around the world. The U.S. was founded on the fundamental ideal that every individual is endowed with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Centralto this ideal is the notion that these rights are not exclusively for Americans, but that they must be recognized and protected for all people.

Although we have achieved tremendous progress in the unending struggle to ensure the protection of these basic human and political rights for individuals in our own country, frequent human rights violations are an unfortunate reality in many parts of the world, especially for women, who are often considered in many parts of the world as a sub-class of citizens.

As you know, in 1979, the U.N. adopted CEDAW. This Convention, signed by the U.S. in 1980, calls for U.N. member nations to condemn discrimination against women in all forms and to establish legal frameworks to carry out this objective. Although the U.S. has signed the Convention and over 160 countries have ratified the document, the U.S. Senate has not formally ratified CEDAW.

On January 3, 2001, Representative Woolsey introduced a House Resolution, H.Res. 18, to express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate should ratify CEDAW. Currently, there is no pending legislation in the Senate for ratification of this Convention; however, there have been attempts in the past two Congresses to secure ratification and I am confident that legislation will be introduced during this Senate as well. I have supported and will continue to support legislation and efforts to combat discrimination in all forms, especially discrimination against women.

If legislation should come before the Senate on this or related issues, I will be certain to keep your views in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so in the future. Sincerely, Maria Cantwell United States Senator

2. Aaron Henderson, DeMenna & Associates, www.demenna.com
>>> <GCUAaron@aol.com> 07/03/02 02:20PM >>>

Bev,

(This is Aaron Henderson).  I am sorry to hear that you believe the UN to be the last frontier with able bodied minds to make a real difference/change.  The UN perpetrates much of the anti-U.S. sentiment currently lurking in the world.  As much as I enjoyed Model United Nations, the real UN is not the cure for the US at all, in fact, often times they are the enemy.  The following article is something you NEED TO READ to understand the ramifications of the misguided attempt. 

BEGINNING OF ARTICLE BELOW>

WASHINGTON – In the 22 years since its introduction by the United Nations, the "Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women," or CEDAW, has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Thursday, Democrats controlling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing in an attempt to bring the treaty back to the attention of the public and to call for a ratification vote by the full Senate.

Supporters say the U.S. cannot speak to discrimination against women in other parts of the world because it has not signed the treaty.

"If we truly want to be regarded as a world leader and champion of human rights, we must teach by example and ratify CEDAW," Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., who has sponsored several resolutions in the House promoting the treaty, told the committee.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chaired the hearing, agreed.

"The U.S. should be pushing Afghanistan to abide by the principles contained in the CEDAW treaty," Boxer cited as an example. "We are speaking to the women of Afghanistan and the women of the world when we act on this treaty."

But opponents say the U.S. is the undisputed world leader in women's and all human rights and does not need a U.N. treaty to prove it.

[1.]  Yeah, Let's Be Like Treaty Signer Afghanistan

"Afghanistan was a signatory in 1980 to CEDAW, and look what took place there," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

"It's the actions that count. The actions of ours of putting forward troops, putting forward an aggressive effort ... to see that women were involved in the [new Afghan legislature], that women are involved in the Afghan cabinet."

Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., opposes CEDAW, not for its goals, but for its implementation by the "Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women," which decides whether or not signatory countries are abiding by the terms of the treaty.

[2] "Although the treaty specifically states that countries shall take measures to suppress trafficking and exploitation of women, the CEDAW Committee has actually called upon China to decriminalize prostitution ... and urged Germany to legitimize prostitution," she noted.

[3] Attacking Mother's Day

"The committee has also criticized a country for the reintroduction of Mothers' Day, arguing that it 'reinforced sexual stereotypes.'"

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., believes the CEDAW treaty would be a good idea, if it actually did what its name implies.

"The title itself promotes the right thing on behalf of women, and I sense that all of us here today share that view," he agreed. "But, ultimately, it's not about the name. What matters for us here is what's inside the convention. We find an assortment of measures, both radical and ill-defined, that belie its name."

Enzi says the 22 years that have passed since the U.N.'s introduction of CEDAW are not a reflection of U.S. inaction on the treaty, but of a deliberate effort by Republicans and Democrats alike to "keep a lid on Pandora's box."

"Its most admiring signatory countries don't adhere to the letter of CEDAW," Enzi charged, citing the following examples:

[4]  Forced Abortion

The government of China continues to practice forced abortion and sterilization.

A series of governments in Afghanistan oppressed women until the liberation by U.S. and allied forces.

The French government refuses unconditional extradition to the U.S. of fugitives convicted of murdering American women and girls.

Germany will not return abducted American girls to their American parents.

Iraq has killed its own women and girls with chemical weapons.

North Korea starves and oppresses its women and girls.

Saudis Let Girls Burn to Death

In Saudi Arabia, religious police let 14 girls die in a fire rather than allow male rescuers to enter their burning school.

"I don't want the United States' prestige to suffer by association with this group of anti-women rogues," Enzi concluded.

[5]  Another concern Enzi shares with opponents of the treaty is its threat to U.S. sovereignty.

"CEDAW would supercede U.S. federal and state law, surrendering American domestic matters to the norm-setting of the international community," he warned.

Kathryn Ogden Balmforth, a civil rights lawyer and former director of the World Family Policy Center at Brigham Young University, agrees.

"One important characteristic of American civil rights law is that it is crafted, legislatively and judicially, to balance society's interest in preventing discrimination with other, equally important, societal interests, such as fundamental First Amendment rights to speech and freedom of religion," she explained.

[6]  Attack on Freedom of Thought

"By contrast, CEDAW – on its face, and ... as it is being interpreted by the CEDAW Committee – is a threat to political freedom, freedom of thought and belief, parental rights, privacy rights, and religious freedom."

She points to the document itself as evidence:

Article One of CEDAW defines discrimination as "any distinction ... on the basis of sex."

Article Two of the treaty requires signatory states to eliminate all discrimination against women, not just by government, but "by any person, organization, or enterprise."

Article Five of CEDAW directs governments to "modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of ... all ... practices which are based on ... stereotyped roles for men and women."

'Government to Intrude in All Areas'

"In other words, CEDAW requires government to intrude in all areas, no matter how private, consensual, or even sacred, if there is any distinction made on the basis of sex, or if any culture perpetuates 'stereotypes,'" she cautioned. "CEDAW requires the exertion of government power against family, religion, and even thought."

>>> <GCUAaron@aol.com> 07/19/02 01:55PM >>>

Do not have much time today, but a few thoughts:

The UN has nothing to give to America, it can only take.  Depending on which side of the political universe one resides in determines the worth of this philosophy.  I like to give, not to have things taken.

I am not the author of the article, though you can say I discovered it.

Feel free to use my response about the UN, hopefully there is a younger Aaron running around somewhere in your classes.

There are plenty of platforms for anti US sentiment.  In fact, this really pisses me off.  There are more platforms for anti-US sentiment than any other country in the world.  We bear the brunt within our own countries media and the rest of the world.  WE do not need the UN (WHO WE FOUND WITH REDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY taking shots at us as well) In fact, IRAQ and many other countries dedicate all of their resources to defaming and discrediting us!

Still wondering if institutions can make a real change or if you need to be outside of the institution.  Do I become 1 of many representatives in Gov. or go outside and blaze my own path?

Take care.

Aaron

>>> "Aaron Henderson" <aaron@demenna.com> 07/22/02 01:23PM >>>        

U.S. Refuses to Fund U.N.'s Forced Abortions

            Melanie Hunter, CNSNews.com

            Tuesday, July 23, 2002

In a decision that will please most conservatives, the Bush administration Monday announced it is withholding U.S. funding ($34 million) for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports "family planning" programs overseas.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the administration "came to the conclusion that the U.N. Population Fund monies go to Chinese agencies that carry out coercive programs."

Press reports said the money would instead go toward child survival and health programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development. In a statement released over the weekend, The National Right to Life Committee called UNFPA "a cheerleader and facilitator for China's birth-quota program, which relies heavily on coerced abortion."

Federal law (the Kemp-Kasten Amendment) prohibits the United States from funding any organization or program involving coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Aaron Henderson
www.demenna.com
DeMenna & Associates
1825 W. Adams St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

>>> "Aaron Henderson" <aaron@demenna.com> 07/22/02 05:00PM >>>

Coersion and involuntary are two seperate ideas, especially in China. US is abiding by the 1984 law that "supports or participates" in forced abortion.  Now we can debate what "forced" really is, but when the DNC scolds Pres. Bush for playing politics with the health of women, his comments reak of pure politics.  It is well, well documented that abortions do not help women's health, they only endanger future pregnancies.

The US is withholding $34 Million of US money.  That money should not go to China or other places via the United Nations.  I do not want my money stolen from me (yes stolen) in order to further this idea in China, why would you?

Do you enjoy your money being taken Bev?  The idea that money should be forcefully taken from us scares me more than anything. The Chinese said they use encouragement, not coersion to control the population...encouragement (do you really believe that?) after all of the studies that have been done, after all of the girls that are aborted each year.

THE BELOW PORTION IS FROM THE ARTICLE BEV, YOU NEED TO SEE SOMETHING:

[[[A State Department fact-finding mission in May found no evidence that the United Nations program "knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization," and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell praised the agency's "invaluable work" in Congressional testimony last year.]]]

If you read this paragraph closely, it is horrible journalism.  The fact finding mission was in May, a few months ago.  They then try to attribute Powell praising it, though his quote is from well over a year ago NOT relating to this "fact finding mission."  They could not even find a quote to back up this "fact finding mission."

Let's say, that there are no abortions going on, and that everything is just fine.  Lets say that we are just contributing money to a chinese program...THAT STILL IS COMPLETELY WRONG!!!  If people WANT to give to the program, then that is fine, I have no problem with that.  My problem is that my money is being taken away from me to fund things I do not agree with. 

My question to you is this...if you want to volunteer your time, energy and money to something, then I will encourage you, but why encourage our government or any other agency to take money from others when they do not agree with it?

Closing thoughts:

I think abortion should be legal, even though I personally disagree with it. There should be regulations, but that option should still be there.  ( I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, but for now this is how I feel).  Lastly, the NY TIMES is notoriously left-leaning.  In fact, I am suprised they have not fallen over they are so far left. 

I send you tidbits of info that you would not otherwise read or see in your daily life to inspire thought.  I however am subject to mainstream media's left leaning agenda, so whether I want to see your side or not, I am subject to it just by being alive.

I look forward to our next thought provoking exchange.  Till then...

Aaron Henderson

>>> "Aaron Henderson" <aaron@demenna.com> 07/22/02 05:06PM >>>

My issue above anything else is involuntary taxation.  I think you will find that through my recent response.

>>> <GCUAaron@aol.com> 07/24/02 03:48PM >>>

below is part of an editorial that I found interesting.  Maybe we can agree on this at least.  (not sure if the social security part is true, but what it leads into is true)

...WorldCom inflated earnings by just short of $4 billion. Big deal, huh? CNN's Jonathan Karl reports that Congress recently voted for a $15 billion bailout of the railroad pension fund. That's billion with a "B"… 15 of them.

This doesn't appear on the balance sheet. It doesn't show on the books. This means that on this one issue alone – the railroad retirement bailout, Congress has inflated earnings by a factor of four times more than WorldCom. Let a corporation do this and someone goes to jail.

Another accounting trick the government recently pulled. Politicians decided to pay military personnel one day earlier … just before the end of the last fiscal year. This payday costs the government about $2.3 billion. By moving the payday from the first day of the new fiscal year to the last day of the last fiscal year, the politicians can claim a $2.3 billion savings on the current budget. They don't mention that they just inflated the deficit on the last budget by the same amount.

The Social Security Trust Fund. It doesn't exist. It's nothing but a stack of IOUs from the federal government that rest in a file in a filing cabinet in West Virginia. (No kidding! A file cabinet in West Virginia!)

These IOUs say that the government owes the Social Security all of the money it has seized from Social Security taxes to pay for various vote-buying schemes. The government doesn't have the money to pay back these IOUs. Thus, there is NO Social Security Trust Fund.

Oh, by the way. The government does not show the money that it owes to the Social Security Trust Fund as a liability on its books. There's a law out there called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, "ERISA," as it's known by pension fund administrators.

ERISA would prohibit a corporation from doing what the federal government does with the Social Security Trust Fund. You won't be surprised to learn that ERISA doesn't apply to Congress.

Now … from Jonathan Karl's report, a quotation from David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director in 1985:

"We have increasingly resorted to squaring the circle with accounting gimmicks, evasions, half-truths and downright dishonesty in our budget numbers. If the SEC had jurisdiction over the executive and legislative branches, many of us would be in jail."

Bad corporations? The market is punishing them right now. You can also punish them by refusing to do business with them.

Bad governments? How do we punish them? At the ballot box? That's a laugh. This year over 95 percent of all incumbents – the people who have been cooking the books for years – will be returned to office.

>>> <GCUAaron@aol.com> 07/25/02 11:50AM >>>

Bev,

the reason I gave you just an excerpt, is because people get caught up in the source of the article.  Sure, media outlets have biases, but I wanted you to evaluate the information, not the source.  In this case, the source does not matter, it is an editorial publishable in any source that is willing to pick it up.  Just wanted you to have a look and maybe "spark a thought" as your son likes to say.

take care

aaron