Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Bruce is proposing the empowerment of women? This will take a few minutes to sink in....
Wow. I do feel more powerful already.
Historically, it's been proven, as women become more educated (and have access to better prenatal care contraception) they give birth to fewer children, but the children live longer and healthier lives. There's less use of resources overall, and less wear and tear on Parental Unit Earth (not wanting to use the sexist term "Mother Earth," since I'm feeling so empowered!) :)
It's a nice cycle that would appear to help everyone involved, except apparently the right-wing groups that don't like the idea of the US giving aid to the Non-Governmental Organizations who advocate contraception (because, God forbid, they may grant access to abortion too). So the United States has cut the vast majority of women's health aid (anything that tangentially might have anything to do with the reproductive system) to NGOs since January 2001.
Yes Bob, we can't sit back and give funds to environmental charities only. But as harsh as it sounds, feeding people without educating them doesn't do any good on a global scale (and it may actually hurt if they just go on to have more children). I personally like donating to Planned Parenthood's program for International Health because it empowers women (has the moratorium on this phrase gone into effect yet?) to control their output, so to speak.
Sierra Club is not a charity, though. It doesn't qualify as a 501(c) charity under the IRS code. It is an "environmental grassroots organization" whose mission is to influence public policy to protect the environment (and organize fun little social events at the local level to keep members entertained...and it publishes some snazzy calendars too). As Sierra Club works on an anti-W agenda and helps run him out of office, the NGOs may get their funding back, and promulgate the humanitarian agenda once again. Win for the NGOs, Win for the poor people, Win for the global environment. A hat trick!
Wow. I do feel more powerful already.
Historically, it's been proven, as women become more educated (and have access to better prenatal care contraception) they give birth to fewer children, but the children live longer and healthier lives. There's less use of resources overall, and less wear and tear on Parental Unit Earth (not wanting to use the sexist term "Mother Earth," since I'm feeling so empowered!) :)
It's a nice cycle that would appear to help everyone involved, except apparently the right-wing groups that don't like the idea of the US giving aid to the Non-Governmental Organizations who advocate contraception (because, God forbid, they may grant access to abortion too). So the United States has cut the vast majority of women's health aid (anything that tangentially might have anything to do with the reproductive system) to NGOs since January 2001.
Yes Bob, we can't sit back and give funds to environmental charities only. But as harsh as it sounds, feeding people without educating them doesn't do any good on a global scale (and it may actually hurt if they just go on to have more children). I personally like donating to Planned Parenthood's program for International Health because it empowers women (has the moratorium on this phrase gone into effect yet?) to control their output, so to speak.
Sierra Club is not a charity, though. It doesn't qualify as a 501(c) charity under the IRS code. It is an "environmental grassroots organization" whose mission is to influence public policy to protect the environment (and organize fun little social events at the local level to keep members entertained...and it publishes some snazzy calendars too). As Sierra Club works on an anti-W agenda and helps run him out of office, the NGOs may get their funding back, and promulgate the humanitarian agenda once again. Win for the NGOs, Win for the poor people, Win for the global environment. A hat trick!
