Music ... it's the sound!

It's the sound of music that makes it great, true?

No, not really.

It was a surprise for the musical snob world to find out that a rendition of Mozart is not judged on the auditory impact alone, even by professional, expert judges.  Despite centuries of thinking that perfection of execution was the sole criteria on which music is evaluated, we now know otherwise.

"Chia-Jung Tsay was something of a piano prodigy.  By age 12, she was performing Mendelssohn in concert. At 16, she made her debut at Carnegie Hall. Soon, she was on her way to some of the best music schools in the country — Juilliard and the Peabody Conservatory." ~NPR  She discovered along the way that her chances were improved if the judges could 'see' her perform rather than just hear her play.  Notice the key; her visual presentation in performance changed the results.

Dr. Chia-Jung Tsay, in addition to her musical career, is also a psychologist at University College, London.  She's helped clarify some things for us.

Consider.  Music lived on the radio for decades.  Live performances were rare, and a lucky person might see one or two a year.  The music world exploded with music videos, and MTV went quickly through the stratosphere and around the world.  Why?    

Powerfully presented ...

Presentation changes our valuation of content.  Mediocre anything in an impressive presentation get's a better reception in our brains.

Eye-catching ...

This particular nuance in our thinking process is a troublesome vulnerability.

From performers to marketers to politicians, they shape their presentation for the best reception.  Note the effort that is focused on presentation rather than on content quality or benefit, on persuasion rather than on objective understanding; it's not information, it's a sales pitch.  They hope to thrill us and emotionalize us into their camp, whether it's a political ideology or a product line.

Cuteness, however ridiculous ...

It's soap they're advertising, but who cares ...

Carry the concept into the media realm, and you realize it's not a friendly environment.  It's a competition for our attention, our money, and our endorsement come election day.  It's an intense and deliberate warfare without rules where the stakes are our future and the minds of our children.

Being an objective observer of truth and value is perhaps the most difficult mental task one will face in their lifetime.

In the Morning ...

In the morning, our brain springs into action and quickly fills with the stuff we expect to face in the day.  We rummage through all that must be done, figuring out details, trying to set some priorities and make our mental lists.  Why would anyone suggest that we begin the day in prayer when there's so much to be done?

Perhaps they've discovered something?

Perhaps a mind refreshed and reminded about things that truly matter, about values that can lift us up above the furor ... perhaps that's a better place to begin the day.  It will certainly affect the shape of things at the end.

Give ear to my words O Lord
Consider my meditation

An old fortress on a misty morning in western Africa.  A great place to sit and think a bit before
running off to work and school.  Remembering what's important as opposed to just urgent,
well it's not easy, but it is the difference between productive and just busy.

Harken unto the voice of my cry
My King and my God
For unto Thee will I pray
My voice shalt Thou hear
In the morning
O Lord in the morning
Will I direct my prayer
Unto Thee and will look up

The Science of Snobbery

- and how we learn to be stupid.

A $10 wine is obviously going to be less worthy than a $100 wine.  Of course.

An interesting series of experimental studies suggest that even the experts often can't tell the difference.  White wine with red food coloring elicited red wine compliments, the grand crus are described like cheap wines and vice-versa when the bottles are switched, and so on.

Despite protests from wine lovers, there's perhaps not as much science and objectivity involved as you'd like.

Rude salespeople actually increase the chance
that you'll buy that expensive item.

The Science of Snobbery: How We're Duped Into Thinking Fancy Things Are Better  ~ there's an interesting article on the subject in The Atlantic

Is a Mercedes actually better than a Chevrolet?  Well of course it is, it costs twice as much, and it's more cool to drive one.

From the science, it appears that preference is tied to inferred quality, presentation, and name reputation as much if not more than actual quality.

Thin Slicing.  The term thin-slicing refers to our making quick decisions with minimal information. It's how you decide many things, from what you'll buy to what you'll believe. At the gut level, it's based on previously acquired values, of which snobbery is one.


Thinking has always been described as a conscious effort, but thin-slicing is the unconscious behavior of gut response, and we all depend on it regularly. Perhaps 95% of the decisions we make are at this level.

The Drowning Child Dilemma

In what ways should we question our intuition?

Consider this dilemma posed four decades ago. You see

a child drowning.  You could save that child's life, but

if you do, you will ruin your fancy $1,000 suit. People

were asked if it is okay to let the child drown.  Most

say, of course not, that would be monstrous.

In another case, children on the other side of the world

 are desperately in need of food.  By donating money,

you can save their lives.  Do you have an obligation

to do that? Most people say that it’s nice if you do,

but it’s not terrible if you instead choose to spend

your money on luxuries for yourself.

Most philosophers have taken those intuitions at face value

and said, that’s right, there is a moral obligation when the

child is right in front of you, but not on the other side of

the world. "Is there really a moral difference?"

~Joshua Greene, discussing Princeton moral

 philosopher Peter Singer who conducted

the study. Singer asks the question.

Is there?  Of course not.

Thin slicing or instantaneous analysis; it's how we evaluate quickly, and the criteria (values) we use are acquired but not necessarily from logic and objectivity.  It's the things we've learned to actually care about.

The primary source of established gut values in the western mind is the media.  It used to be family and church and school, but things have changed.  Is that good or not?

The things we care about, those values we use so regularly in decision making, can be consciously chosen, but it's an uphill battle against the deluge of proffered norms in reality shows, advertising, and exaggerated drama in the social realm.  

Choosing to care is a surprisingly difficult task, particularly when you consider that caring usually requires doing something.  It's easier to just notice and move on; that's the common path, the easiest way out.  See, and choose against.  The choice is perhaps below the conscious level, but our personal values are visible in our actions, our lifestyle, our choices.

Know what your values are?  Short quiz:

• Do you admire the successful?  Why?
• Do you prefer the designer clothing lines? Do you know why?
• Would you pay $150 for a pair of running shoes?
• Do you aspire to a larger, nicer home like 'they' have?
• Is 'having' one of your primary life goals?
• Do celebrities appeal to you?  Do you know why?
• How often is 'helping others' on your agenda?

Look into the mind of a teen ... here.

Con·ception

... and Contra·ception

Family planning and birth control have been hotly debated in the public forum since long before our time.  Abortion is a particularly volatile part of the discussion.

"Life begins at conception."
"Life becomes human at 'quickening'." (the time of first movement in the womb)
"Life begins at birth."  No one has actually said that, but their practices suggest that's the marker.
"It's just a mass of cells."
"It's a fetus, not a baby."
And my recent favorite, "Planned Parenthood doesn't sell baby parts, you ****ing idiots."

We each have strong thoughts about the issues, particularly the parents among us, but some objectivity helps.

The first issue:  "I need to not get pregnant.  What do I do?"

The solution to that is simple and difficult at the same time.

     As a start, don't get pregnant (or impregnate) until you're ready.

• Don't have sex until it's appropriate.  There's much discussion on when that might be.
• Don't have unprotected sex.  More discussion and more reasons.
• If you're going to have sex but don't want to get pregnant (or impregnate anyone), use birth control.

The chart addresses contraception in early adolescence.  From

New Zealand, the descriptions includes comments about the

coverage in their healthcare program funding.

Sex education was thought to foster restraint and appropriate behavior leading to fewer unwanted pregnancies.  It hasn't, and studies differ over whether it may have increased sexual activity among minors along with the number of unintended pregnancies.

We shouldn't expect schools to solve this one for us on their own.

Community clinics for women were expected to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, but with similar results.  Some clinics have evolved into something other than was hoped.  Clinic counselors for Planned Parenthood have been videotaped offering advice to minors on sex shops to visit and illegal ways to avoid parental notification.  Parental involvement has suffered.

In an interesting development in the international HIV/AIDS world, both treatment and prevention have been recently combined in programmatic planning.  It costs $1500 to treat a patient and $20 to prevent infection, it was discovered.  After years of being focused on the cure, prevention is finally on the planning table. Prevention is the larger part of a long term solution.

Similarly with unwanted pregnancy, treatment after the fact is costly and fraught with physical, ethical, and psychological risks.  Prevention is relatively easy and inexpensive to address.  Again, prevention is the larger part of a long term solution.


Parents!  Pretending our children are not going to face extraordinary pressure in their social environment is naive and irresponsible, and the media adds to the early sexualization of their otherwise innocent thinking.  Perhaps it's time to consider how we might prevent the trauma and longer term consequences from occurring in the first place.

If my kids had to travel afoot, alone across the savanna inhabited by dangerous carnivores, I'd at least ensure they were properly trained and equipped for the danger. How might we train and equip our youth for the equally dangerous environment of 21st century amorality?

What information do our kids have?

• In a study of youth ages 12 to 17 who had abstinence education, young people's definitions of abstinence included many sexual behaviors while consistently avoiding only (vaginal) intercourse. In a study of college freshmen and sophomores, 37 percent described oral sex and 24 percent described anal sex as abstinent behaviors.
• In a recent poll, 32 percent of U.S. teens did not believe condoms were effective in preventing HIV and 22 percent did not believe that birth control pills were effective in preventing pregnancy.
• In the same poll, 66 percent of teens said they would feel suspicious or worried about their partner's past, if the partner suggested using a condom; 49 percent would worry that the partner was suspicious of them; 20 percent would feel insulted.
• Sexual Risk Behaviors among high school students surveyed:   • 47% had ever had sexual intercourse.    • 6% had sexual intercourse for the first time before age 13.  • 15% had sexual intercourse with four or more persons.  • 34% had sexual intercourse with at least one person during the 3 months before the survey.  • 41% did not use a condom during last sexual intercourse.   • 14% did not use any method to prevent pregnancy during last sexual intercourse.     • 81% did not use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy during last sexual intercourse. 

References. Reference hhv.gov Reference cdc.gov

Few countries in the world address the sexual and reproductive health needs of their young people.  There is much controversy over the issue of adolescent sexuality and often a cultural disinclination (or inability) to address the issue directly.

Nonetheless, regardless of culture, age, or marital status, young people need complete information about their body functions, sex, and safer sex, plus sexual negotiation and refusal skills.  Without information and understanding, young people are forced to make ill-informed decisions that will potentially have profoundly negative effects on their lives.  What else do they need?

• Parents need to know: libido often rises before character and understanding are adequately informed to lead the way.  Early and thoughtful attention to character issues and decision making may help equip the child to deal with the powerful feelings that will come with the emotional and physiological equivalent of intoxication following puberty.  
• The character qualities of self-determination and moral decision making can be viewed as a contest of values between family and local society.  While family has the early advantage, the real contest begins with broadening socialization via the media and friends.
• More?  Is a narrowly religious approach effective.  Does 'just say no' address the concern adequately?  Is there a larger vision than 'don't get pregnant'?

Stay ahead of the issue.  Prevention is the larger part of a long term solution.

M&M's Commercial

Humorous, perhaps, but it's worth noting the boundaries our advertisers are pushing.  I'm annoyed and a little soiled by having seen this one, but I wonder what the message might be to a child in the developmental years.  I doubt it's anything I'd want my child to have to deal with early on.  The comment (inserted in the picture) says it rather well.

Much of the media, from reality shows to neuromarketing, is sexually bent, a disappointing byproduct of ... what? The passing of years? Or the decline of a culture.  It has happened before. Figured out your own path yet?


Other comments on the commercial:

Jonathan Vasgar 1 week ago

Not only is this not funny, it's blatantly offense. What were the advertisers thinking?

· 2

ltrigger47 2 weeks ago

What is up with this **** since when is it cool to sexualize kids candy commercials and why is it cool for marriage to be a joke in this country what r they trying to subject the youth of our country to this kind of behavior SHAME.

 · 2

Judi Bohanon 1 week ago

I don't  think this is a good commercial for children to see. The candy is known to everyone, but this sets a bad example to children. Most of the commercials are good...just not this one!

 · 3

Blurred, to soften the nonsense a bit ...

Update:  While I was stewing on this issue and half-watching the news, a bunch of women in their underwear were suddenly dancing on my TV screen.  I was watching the news on CNN, for Pete's sake.  I changed the channel only to come in at the beginning of the same commercial again.  It was before 8:00 in the morning, the time when kids will be up and around the house.  Have things changed?

these truths

Experience has shown us that we are more willing to suffer, while troubles are endurable, than to set things right by dismantling our accustomed arrangement.* 

We endure the limited choice of two ruling parties, both of which are well intended, but they fight like angry children, and often do as much harm as good.  Their approval rating is at 8%, suggesting we'd prefer almost anything else.

We endure the untruths of political power holders as though it were the expected norm.  The lives of our young men and women are poured out on the altar of the long lamented military-industrial temple.  We protest and endure. 

We endure the promises not kept, the exaggeration of authority, the intrusion of rule into our personal lives and resources.  None are easily endured, but we manage.

Having been promised liberty and equality, and rule by the consent of the governed, we face inequality and rule by the wealthy and influential.  We see the marginalized and disenfranchised among us, those who are left behind while a chosen few bask in extraordinary privilege.

We began as a beacon for the world of democracy and noble purpose.  We stood for right in the face of tyranny, and we were respected for it.  Our reputation has fallen among the nations and at home, however.  No longer America the just and fair, no longer the place of brotherhood and great heart, now we're just the rich and selfish, or at least that's our reputation.  Read the Congressional Report.  We've made too many choices for economic advantage rather than justice.

So we continue to endure for a season in hope of change, of moral and ethical clarity and return to what is right and good for our citizenry and our purpose among the nations.

Seasons change, though.  It's happened before.

*... all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 

    ~ from the U.S. Declaration of Independence 

Meanwhile, our options available in order of impact include:

• Personal life choices; be the person you hope your children will emulate.  Pray for strength and clarity to do so.  
• Community choices; be involved in the good part.
• Humanity choices; find the need and lend a hand.  Study and discover what helps; it's not as easy as you might think.  
• Political choices; understand the process and its foundation.  Write your congressional representatives.  You may have to pretend you're part of a mega-corp to get their attention, though.  :)

Change-makers and help-bringers have more fun, and they live in the real world!
They get to leave knowing they've done their part well.

The Big Lie

 1937 - The party told folks that the Jews were a
 corrupt and wicked race.  People believed it.

Why would people believe something just hugely false?

It's not uncommon, and we've all fallen for it.  Remember when we were told that black people were a less developed species than whites?  Remember when women were said to be less intelligent and rational than men?  Our culture was warped by such large-spectrum falsehoods.

It's difficult to clean up the mess from such wrong thinking.

We're two centuries along in dealing with race issues.   We banned the importation of African slaves in 1808, but the remnants of such wrong thinking are still visible in our culture, and will likely take generations more to die out completely.  Appropriate equality and respect for women are similarly slow in arriving.

There are two parts to the problem of wrong thinking.
The first is the ambiguity of an issue.  The second is the advantage that it provides.

In the racial question, for example, Africans were different than Europeans, and it seemed perhaps reasonable that they were in some way inferior.  It was ambiguous, lacking science and validity, it was not accurately understood.  The advantage for rule and wealth (African diamonds and gold) followed quickly, and the easily resolvable question was politically sustained for the benefit of the wealthy and influential of the period.  They're all dead now, fortunately.

Today we're dealing with an issue that began similarly, and is now less ambiguous.  We began the discussion on abortion and law around 1800.  Over the years, advances in science and medicine let us see problem pregnancies and begin to consider the issue of the mother's safety separately from the child's life.  Abortion to save the mother's life was legalized, and the debate moved on to issues of preference and timing.

It was a political and philosophical battle in the U.S. until legalization in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, and defined by law as an issue of privacy.  You could abort up to viability as determined by the doctor.  The issue of viability was a marker for the debate.

We didn't have the scientific clarity in the 19th and 20th centuries that we have now.  When Winston Churchill was born two months early and survived, he was a rarity.  Viability of preterm births has improved over the years.  Today, a 24 week preemie will usually go to the neonatal unit with a chance of survival, but the threshold of viability is not that precise.  A few successful 22 week preemies have now entered the scene.

Cecile Richards - President, Planned Parenthood - 

compares abortion to a colonoscopy and considers

both to be 'health care'.
One detects cancer early and can legitimately
 be considered health care.  The other terminates a
life and is unrelated to health care except
 by deliberate misrepresentation.

When Sarah Capewell gave live birth at 21 weeks 5 days gestation, her son was denied treatment at the hospital, and died within two hours of birth. According to the mother, he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat, and was moving his arms and legs.  If he had been born two days later he might have received treatment.  

So the questions of privacy, viability, preference, and ethics are all on the table.  The early distinction of fetus vs. baby is less useful than was hoped by abortion advocates.

The 'born alive' laws are quite clear, but the abortion industry appears to violate that criteria.

“So you know there are times when after the procedure is done that the heart actually is still beating”         - Dr. Ben Van Handel describing post-abortion condition of the 'fetus'.

Lucas Moore, born a at 23 weeks, is celebrating his first

birthday, healthy and whole.  He was legally abortable,

just a 'fetus', a tissue mass, a product of conception, 

according to Planned Parenthood, and a good candidate

for organ harvesting and sale. 

Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”  Asked again by stunned hearers, she repeated her answer.  

She was testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion.  Planned Parenthood later issued a clean-up statement that in the unlikely event that a baby were born alive it would “provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant.” That is of little credibility, since a Planned Parenthood counselor has been caught on tape admitting that the organization leaves infants born alive by abortion to die.

Federal law requires appropriate care for an aborted child with a beating heart just like any other newborn.  The magic transition from fetus to baby occurs upon emergence from the mother.  But ...

'It's still a fetus until birth.'  The Big Lie is almost lost in the debate.  If we call it a child, it's a problem.  We can call it a fetus until it is born, and for the law, that defers the problem.    

At some point, however, we are aborting a human child. A born-alive child is legally recognized as such upon emergence from the womb, even before its first breath.  Pre- or full-term, it is legally a human being once it is outside its' mother.

That child is the same, however, whether in the doctor's hands two seconds after delivery or in its mother in the seconds just prior to birth.  And the hours prior, the days and perhaps weeks prior. Calling the child a fetus doesn't change that reality.  It's not an easily resolved question, but such deliberate misrepresentation is political, not objective science or reason.

The big lie is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

The centerpiece of Pro-Choice and of Planned Parenthood is abortion built on the big lie.  

Rejection

According to the media, Terry Jones is a
Christian pastor with a dwindling 
congregation of about 15 at
 last report.

Jones conducted a public burning of the Koran
in 2011. In response to the media coverage,
protesters in northern Afghanistan attacked
a UN Aid Mission, killing 12 people,
 including 7 UN workers.

Jones has been denied entry into Canada,
the U.K., and Germany for his hate-speech.

According to the German Evangelical Alliance,

Jones was released from the leadership of the

Cologne Christian Church in '08 due to his

indefensible theological statements and

 his craving for attention.

In 2012, Terry Jones promoted a film vilifying

 Islam, titled Innocence of Muslims. The film

led to protests in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia,

and Libya. Jones screened it at church on

9.11.2012, a day he named, "International

 Judge Mohammad Day"

In 2012, Jones hanged an effigy of Obama in
front of his church. Effigies of Obama and
Bill Clinton were burned in 2013.

For the the 2012 elections, he declared

 himself an independent presidential

candidate. He is a listed candidate

for the 2016 U.S. election.

A formulaic approach to religion is common but troublesome.
Do this and this, and you'll be saved and go to heaven.

If you refuse the gospel, you won't.  You'll be rejected at the gate.
Those are the rules.

So, what if you hear the gospel from folks like Terry Jones?  How does that affect your salvation equation?  Only the most unlearned can listen to this fellow.  Does his talking about the Bible and Christianity count?  Most will reject what he offers, and wisely so.

There are so many who have been driven away by religious rules and rule purveyors.  There's truth, and then there's arrogance and foolish error that spills out of narrow minds.  The two are unrelated.

The media flail over Jones is inappropriate, of course.  Talking with his few followers about Jesus and burning the Koran doesn't make him a legitimate spokesperson either for Christianity or its author.

Had Jones encountered the author, he'd perhaps have a different message.

The 'good news' is farther from this sort of nonsense than can be described in words, and it's not about rules. 

• Although he's perhaps running for president, Jones hasn't been in the news lately.  In January, he was working at Fry Guys in a mall food court in Florida.  Here's hoping he gets his thinking straight.

From 2012... and Muslim Peace

Are banks necessary?

No.  As individuals, we don't need them.  There are many alternatives for the typical household.  Credit unions, brokerage accounts, insurance accounts, and prepaid/reloadable credit cards are a few examples.

Are banks trustworthy?
Not particularly.  Banks are supposed to play by the rules, but that hasn't gone well.  Between 2009 and 2014, the largest U.S. banks paid $130 billion in fines, settlements, and criminal penalties for their illegal activities.  That was just for the times they cheated and got caught, of course.  Small, local banks are more reasonably managed.

Are banks keeping your money safe?
No, that's the government's FDIC.

Our first banks were small, local, and community focused.  They knew their customers.  They held money for folks in the form of deposits, and they loaned it back within the community.  Interest on deposits and more interest on loans is how they managed their costs, but that was and still is their purpose.  All the rest is questionable.

Most banks now are far removed from communities and from their customers.

Some folks these days would like to take their business elsewhere, perhaps for ethical reasons.  The big banks do all manner of things that cause people of conscience to prefer an alternative.

"Virtually all independent economists and financial experts agree that the economy cannot stabilize or recover unless the giant, insolvent banks are broken up (and 1, 1A,  2, and 3).  And the very size of the big banks is also warping our entire political system."  ... as in purchasing the legislation they need.  And size ... the larger banks are bigger than most countries.

A capitalist free market economy has much to commend it.  Big banks aren't included in the list.


The current generation has seen emphasis on insider plays, manipulation of the marketplace, and purchased regulation.  Every president and virtually every congressman has supported the financial industry and the wealthy at the expense of the citizenry.

The result is a national ponzi scheme.  It's wealth extraction from the top with the price tag at the bottom of the pyramid where most people live.  That's the U.S. economic model since '79.

Assets.  I'm sure that was supposed to be 'by assets'.

   Okay, maybe not.
Note the asset scale increments, five hundred thousand million,
then one million million, ... incredible wealth concentration.

A classic ponzi requires suckers to buy in, but today's version depends on government regulation to open our collective financial resources without our permission for use by the ponzi players.  It has been noted by leading economists that the financial industry now serves the few and provides nothing for the well being of the citizenry.

There are a number of factors suggesting change is coming.  For now, you can get along fine without any banks being part of the process.  The more difficult task is defending the nation.  Feel free to suggest to your representatives that you'd be quite happy if the big banks were disassembled and made to behave responsibly.

Crossing the Line

The Law:  The problem with drawing a line in the sand is that someone is likely to cross it; it's almost a challenge to see if you can find a way to do it.

Ask any business executive or Wall Street player if there aren't trade and finance laws that you can beat just by arranging your books the right way, and you can make a killing.

The authority of law rises from the moral intent to prevent harm, to avoid a pitfall, as in 'don't do that or you'll hurt somebody'. We know it's not perfect; loopholes in the law let you hurt others legally, so for now, the law says that's acceptable.  Some folks are fighting to keep it that way, but to be fair, perhaps they don't understand what they've agreed to.



Norma McCorvey was Roe in Roe v. Wade.  She later testified to Congress:

Her parents named her Amillia - which means
resilient in Latin, a fighter and hardworking
 - to reflect her survival against the odds.
Born at 21 weeks and 6 days ...
Fortunately, Planned Parenthood was
 not involved.

"It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes."

Instead of a last resort to avoid unendurable troubles, abortion has become a convenience available without restriction.

From the 2012 Democratic Party platform on abortion:

"... unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade  ...  We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. ..."

Although unintended by the court, the ruling has loopholes big enough for an eight-month pregnant minor to walk through for an abortion without "her family, her doctor," or "her clergy" ever being part of the decision.

The party has removed the sentence “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” from its platform. 

The question?  After millions of written pages and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the legal battles in state and federal courts and in government houses, the original question is lost.
Is there harm to anyone?

Abortion -- does it hurt anyone?

It's a moral question, not a legal one. We've come so far from our first intent that we now permit an abortionist to dismember a living, viable baby in the womb (just like these pictured here) and then sell its' heart and brain and other organs.

Where is the transition from embryo to child?  At what point have we crossed that line?

Food, Education, and Income

What we eat is perhaps affected by both education and income.  This illuminating graphic from Bloomberg Business is based on statistics and information from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.  It suggests that that poverty is unhealthy; what a surprise.

The impact of economic distress persists across generations.

A fellow I met recently laughed about working two jobs and sometimes three in order to meet the needs of his baby boy.  The child's mother had left him with custody and impossible debt.  As he wrapped up one job around 7 PM, he was off to another after a stop for supper at the gas station, a couple of burritos.  His own upbringing hadn't been easy; his father had been out of the picture for most of twenty-seven years.  Despite the difficulties, he was enthusiastic about moving forward career-wise as a worker on major construction projects, but employment opportunities have been scarce.  Walmart turned him away because he was 'overqualified'.

The difficulties some face are greater than for others.  Opportunity isn't truly equal and advanced education is difficult to tackle financially.  Those who attempt it are often left in debt for years whether they finish or not.

In the recent debate among presidential contenders, much was said about business and tax cuts and national strength, but not a word about our decades of accelerating inequality.  I'd hoped they would notice.

For the record, neither party is addressing the issue.

No one has an easy path.  Both success and meaningful life require great effort and perseverance.  None of us has any chance of doing it on our own alone.