MIGHTY Chondrial/Mighty Eve!

Mitochondrial or mtDNA is the MOTHERLOAD!


In sexually reproducing organisms, mitochondria are normally inherited exclusively from the mother. The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time.

Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all currently living humans. Passed down from mother to offspring, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is derived from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived at different times.

She is believed to have lived about 140,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania. The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity.

Mitochondrial Eve is a person who is a common ancestor to all living humans on a female-only ancestral line. The fact that such a person existed is a logical consequence of the two facts: that humans are one species; and that no one has more than one (biological) mother. It should be stressed that “Eve” is an abstraction: as the most recent matrilineal common ancestor of living humans, it is possible for her identity to change, though it would now be necessary to kill off a large proportion of the human race in order to achieve this.

Whatd'ya mean you're working on out genealogy?

DeJaVu

When I say that I have been involved in helping mothers who lost children to adoption and trying to change adoption since the 1970's...I have often been asked what we did in all that time.

The first and primary cncern of mothers - and adpotees - during those decades of the 70s and 80s was search and support. We searched feverishly for our children and in doing so found and perfected and proteced good "sources" and outed bad ones who scammed people.

One of the five co-founders of origins - started in NJ in 1980 - was Luce Pare who was set up and very lucky not to have wound up in jail. Not so lucky was sandy Musser who did serve time for assisting in searches.

Now once again...we are forced to become criminal to get what should be ours. This woman apparently dared to operate in a state that is still living in the 1950s when it comes to adoption.

Woman accused of stealing records pleads no contest
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 06/11/2008 12:57:18 PM MDT

Posted: 12:56 PM- BRIGHAM CITY -- A woman accused of stealing adoption records from a Davis County courthouse pleaded no contest to the charges.
But Jill Ekstrom may have defendant's regret. She tells an Ogden newspaper that she had taken painkillers Monday and may withdraw the plea.
Ekstrom is the former owner of UtahFinders.com. She gained notoriety for reuniting adopted children with their biological parents.
A Davis County prosecutor, Rick Westmoreland, says 300 to 400 adoption case files from the 1970s were contained on several rolls of microfilm. The microfilm has not been recovered.
Ekstrom, 43, was accused of selling some of that information to an undercover officer.
The Standard-Examiner says Ekstrom pleaded no contest to five misdemeanors. Sentencing is set for July 22.

...ISTS and ISMS..

Current political events have led me to ponder the suffixes -ist and -ism.

Why, I wondered is bad to be a racist, ageist, or sexist -- while not so to be a feminist? Is there such a thing as maleism or maleists? Or just chauvinists and misogynists?

If I were an adoptionist - would that make me for it or against it, I pondered.

So, I looked and found:

The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement, institution, class or group.

The suffix -ist is used to denote a person who either practices something or a person who is concerned with something or a person who holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.

Made sense. If you play the flute, you are a flautist. If you play the piano...a pianist. But those who love dance are not dancists. Hmm.

If you believe in socialism, you are a socialist, but if you believe democracy you are not a democacist or even necessarily a democrat! And if you believe in Christ, you are a Christian, not a Chritsist. Perhps you have to believe an ism to be an ist?

The only conclusion I have come to is that this election is hurting my brain with its "ists" and "isms." It seems to be creating far more divisiveness about our DIFFERENCES, than uniting us...and the lines of difference get finer and finer by the day.

At what age is someone "too old" to run for office? It's like trying to figure out who is "too fat" or "too thin" these days - especially hard if you are in show biz. I think there is one and one ideal weight and anyone a few pounds over that limit - like Kirsty Allen - is labeled "fat" or worse, yet fall a pound or two below the exact acceptable weight and you're suspected of being anorexic (though not an anorexist)!

I think it all has one name with no ism or ist. I think it's all called discrimination!

Capitis diminutio minima and DNA

According to Hebrew and Roman law the offspring of incest or adultery could not be legitimated. Loss of status (capitis diminutio, media or maxima), involved loss of liberty or citizenship, and destroyed the paternal power. Emancipation and adoption had a similar effect. Adoption, which tries to emulate nature, was a means of acquiring the (proper) paternal power.

Our current adoption laws maintain capitis diminutio minima, which involves loss of (original, non-legitimized) family relations in order to acquire the desired status or power of the legally replaced relationship.

Conversely, Part 12 of a 13 part series of YouTube videos entitled Esoteric Agenda talks about Goddesses and patriarchy, innate knowledge and the link between EMOTIONS and DNA.

The very fascinating part for me was the PHANTOM DNA experiment with photons maintaining the DNA form even after it's physically removed. I found that very significant in terms of our relationship to our chidlren - even when we are not with them.

I have always loved reading the fascinating stories of twins separated at birth because of the amazingly similarities in things we would never suspect as being genetic, such as career choices. Of course, now knowing that some of these studies were done by involuntary means is extremely disturbing to say the least...reminiscent of Nazi Germany....and done knowingly by a NYC Jewish adoption agency: Louise Wise, makes it all the more repugnant.

That aside - our DNA runs through our children and forms a great deal of who they are, despite nurture and despite laws that make them capitis diminutio minima.

I Mourn a Once Hero of Mine

I have been an avid fan of Michael Moore since seeing his very first film, Roger and Me" (1989).

I LOVED Fahrenheit 911 and SICKO!!

I have raved and recommended his films to everyone I know and so admired his ability to see the truth and tell it like it is.

And, yet even this icon of the expose and giving us all a window into the corruption of government at the expense of the everyman...even he has been snowed to believe the LIES that adoption RESCUES children!

It's OK for him to admire Madonna's film making abilities. And is even OK that he supports her bringing light to the South African nation of Malawi.

However I am stunned, outraged and in disbelief and EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED to read:

Moore said he was "outraged" by the criticism Madonna received for her efforts to adopt David. Some children's rights groups said it would be better to provide more resources so children could remain in their native countries. Others accused her of using her celebrity status to circumvent Malawian adoption laws, which she denied.

"As one who has seen what the yellow press can and does do, all of that was just one more reminder to me of just how dishonest so much of the media is in this country," Moore said.

He has missed the boat on this one entirely. He is so on the wrong side and sio ignoring the facts.

All of this while Madonna has been publicly speaking - barf bag please - comparing the "pain" she suffered being criticized to labor pains of natural childbirth! A total slap in the fact to her wanna be son David's mother who died in childbirth (or shortly after). So I sort of went through my own kind of birthing pains with dealing with the press on my front doorstep accusing me of kidnapping or whatever you want to call it," she said.

This from the woman too busy to attend and adoption finalization hearing...and not able to bring David to visit his father when she did return to Malawi.

Madonna told a news conference last week at the Cannes film festival that there were no adoption laws in Malawi, and that she was the "template or role model, so to speak, for future adoptions." She has also told reporters she was "happy to be the guinea pig", and expressed hope that her full adoption of David, will make it easier for other people to adopt children in Malawi.

Unfortunately her comments were not appreciated in Malawi:

May 26, 2008 BLANTYRE, Malawi: Malawi's state-sponsored rights group hit out yesterday at recent comments by US pop singer Madonna, saying she was "putting it crudely" when she said the country had no adoption laws.

"If we had no laws, how come she was asked to apply to the court to adopt a child? She used the same laws she is criticising to adopt David," said Dorothy Nyasulu, chairwoman of the state-sponsored Malawi Human Rights Commission.

MICHAEL MOORE: Does Malawi too have "yellow journalism"? Is the human rights commission there NOT speaking for the best interests of their chidlren? Get your head out of your big fat ARSE, Michael! You blew it on this one, dude! You are on the WRONG SIDE and defending a self-interested sensationalist slut. The only thing maternal about her is her name. But the real Madonna never took other people's children away from their family and culture.

Shame on you Michael, You SOLD OUT to hob nob at film festivals! For once - you've been DUPED!

Recently Published Letters RE Adoption Legislaion

Birth parents' rights denied

Asbury Park Press, Thursday, May 22, 2008

Origins-USA is a national nonprofit group advocating for mothers' rights and keeping natural families together. We represent and are the voice of mothers who have lost children to adoption. As such, Origins-USA objects respectfully albeit strongly to the April 22 commentary "Adoption law protects privacy of birth mothers, too."

A Jan. 24 press release on behalf of the NJ Catholic Conference claimed that mothers who lost children to adoption want — and were promised — anonymity and "protection." However, the conference admitted no agreement making a promise of confidentiality exists and points instead to policies regarding privacy from public scrutiny, which is quite different from wanting anonymity from one's own flesh and blood.

Every mother who was persuaded or pressured or lovingly lost a child to adoption suffers lifelong irresolvable grief in sacrifice for all of his or her minor years. Inasmuch as no parental rights extend into one's offspring's adulthood, how can relinquishment of a right to "parent" extend into the majority years of one's offspring?

The only thing promised such mothers was that our children would have a "better life." Being denied equal access to legal, identifying documents, as is taken for granted by all other citizens, was never mentioned as part of any papers signed by any of us or expected.

It is no longer the 1970s. A great deal has changed in terms of gender equality in the ensuing years. Fathers are tracked down to admit their paternity even when it is embarrassing or risks their careers. Origins-USA supports the rights of mothers who neither need nor want "protection." It is a smoke screen for a legalized veil of our shame for us while protecting only those who profit from baby-brokering.

Mirah Riben

PUBLIC RELATIONS CHAIR

ORIGINS-USA

Sealed records put adoptees, kin at risk

CentralJersey.com

The writer of a May 16 letter "Family medical history crucial for adoptees'' is of course right. Family medical history is a vital part of everyone's health care. Outdated laws that deny adoptees and their birth families access to each other put all of them and their descendants at risk. I am a mother who lost a child to adoption and I have been working with this population, researching and writing about adoption issues for nearly 40 years. It is a red herring to believe that mothers want anonymity from their own children.

Mothers who lose children to adoption often go on to have subsequent children without any knowledge of genetic health issues affecting their lost child that might change that decision or be important to the health of their other children.

Medical information needs to be constantly updated, and the only way to keep it current and accurate is for people to be allowed to communicate with one another.

Why do New Jersey adoption records remain sealed? Because those who profit from adoption operate better under the cloak of secrecy. It's time to stop supporting baby brokers at the expense of the right of citizens to life, liberty and equality.

Mirah Riben

MONMOUTH JUNCTION

Newest first Oldest first

Add your comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register

What kind of a job is the media doing?

Ann Wilmer of Green Ribbon has put forth an interesting question and suggested some solutions. Please read and see what YOU think, and then read MY REPLY directly below.


Reporting Adoption: What kind of a job is the media doing?

I'm researching how the media reports adoption issues and I could use some research support. I'm trying to identify major areas in which the media does not report well and find specific examples. I'm sticking to legitimate news standards for this exercise. Bias is another investigation.

I have done several email interviews with triad members regarding their impressions of news coverage of adoption and gotten some very good feedback. In order to approach the media with my findings, I need proof (examples). As you read the newspaper and online sources, I know you already evaluate what you read informally. I'd like you to take time to more formally evaluate what you read by comparing it to the criteria journalists use to define good reporting.

Reporting isn't considered "good reporting" unless it meets certain standards:
* Accurate
* Properly attributed
* Complete
* Balanced and fair
* Objective
* Brief and focused
* Well written

For our purposes, I'm only concerned about the four of the standards above. Brevity and style can be fixed in the editing process and probably do not impact the issue of fair and balanced reporting (if you find an exception, let me know). Proper attribution is primarily an issue of accuracy although inexperienced news writers will try to use words other than "said" (e.g. opined, shouted, etc.) to attibute a quotation and that can lead you down a dangerous path. Said is almost ALWAYS the best choice although there are some other neutral ones like "asked" or "replied," you just don't see them in newswriting very often.

My major areas of concern are these:

Inaccuracy
An example of inaccuracy that has serious implications for the triad community is when either mother of an adoptee is labled the "real" mother since both women perform actions that make them a mother. Using the term "birth" mother is "subtly pejorative" although if that describes you, you may not think it subtle. We may have to live with this term for a while because it has traction, however, it remains an area that offers us an opportunity to educate reporters, editors and the public as long as we do it in a calm and rational manner. If you find an example of inaccuracy, I'd like to know about it. In fact, I'd like to have a copy and a bibliographic citation of the offending article. (By that I mean only name and date of publication -- if I actually get to the point of needing a footnote, I'll call the newspaper.)

Incompleteness
Completeness is a double-edged sword because reporters are loathe to leave out any fact the discover but sometimes the issue of adoption, while not relavant to the story, is included anyway. The typical example is when an adoptee kills his parents. His adoption may or may not have been at the heart of what happened. Early reporting can't tell so if a neighbor happens to mention that the kid being arrested was adopted then it gets into the story. On the other hand, a story about a woman who surrendered a child to adoption and then changed her mind cannot be told without explaining who the child is to her.

Unbalanced or unfair
Balanced and fair is where you will probably find the most problematic reporting. General assignment reporters are usually newbies in the newsroom. They have no specialty so they are sent ont to cover any story that the editor considers not requiring a reporter with specialized skills. At small newspapers, that can be most stories. So in doing his homework -- we are giving this rookie the benefit of the doubt -- he Googles the National Council for Adoption. He doesn't know and NCFA will not point out that they are a lobbyist group rather than a professional association of adoption workers. So, he will get their spin and not realize that he should be getting another side from Child Welfare League of America. Until and unless triad members are listed in the phone book as such -- look in the yellow pages under adoption and you will find agencies, not individuals who've been subjected to the process -- reporters will only think to get our perspective if they know our connection to adoption. To that end, I suggest that every support group out there buy a bunch of Rolodex cards and type them up with the heading "adoption" and list the names of several members from all corners of the triad who are willing and able to speak articulately to adoption issues and send these to local media people. In fact, it would be a great idea for your group to walk into the newsroom -- not as easy as it used to be -- and pass your cards around to everyone in the newsroom during Adoption Awareness Month in November.

Objectivity
Although objective reporting is the goal, news reporting is rarely comepletly objective -- it's a human failing. So we try to be sure a story is fair and balanced. News reporting is unfair if the reporter:
* Omits facts of major significance
* Includes essentially irrelevant information
* Consciously or unconsciously misleads or deceives
* Hides reporter biases or emotions behind subtly pejorative words
* If innocent people are hurt

If you find a news item that falls into the above category, send it to me. You can always email it to me via GRC_Update-owner@ yahoogroups. com. The handfull of people with moderator status will get the clipping and whoever is "on duty" will post it if it includes the URL (which I would need, too).

Be sure that you look at media coverage objectively. It's not easy when the issue is adoption! Here are some guidelines for you.
* Be aware of your own biases
* Do not draw conclusions
* Verify suspicions, feelings or hunches and report the facts that prove them
* Report what people say or do
* Provides context for to help the reader make judgments

I look forward to hearing from you.

Ann Wilmer