Your life begins at delivery, little princess

At least that's what Cecile Richards says she believes.  As CEO of Planned Parenthood, she has to be careful what she says.

If life begins at delivery, then of course that raises questions.  It suggests that until they're outside their mom's belly, they're not really alive.  

Let's watch it happen for a little princess -- in the months before delivery, she already has a routine of wake and sleep, of activity and rest.  Movement brings sensations and sometimes a response from mom.  Mom's voice is familiar, being held close is familiar, and there's something new in every moment that passes. Stretch and flex, it's fascinating, moving arms, then legs, and figuring out how it works.  First awarenesses are probably intriguing; of touch and taste, of light and dark, activity and stillness, sounds and silence and calm, and the occasional hiccup.  Then there are voices she hears and maybe mom sings her a song.  

When it comes time to be born, it's got to be a bit difficult.  The tension mom feels has got to be unnerving.  Struggle and then, out!  Whoohoo, first breath!  Okay, that was bizarre, and look at all this light, and it's kind of loud out here, and apparently I need some clothes! 

Shhhhhh.  Her Royal Highness
is sleeping!

Afterwards, when she's wrapped up and warm and in mommy's arms, now she can hear her voice really clearly, and she's comforted.  Too, there's daddy saying comforting things to both of them and others making lots of interesting noises.  As things quiet down, and she's where she belongs, she'll probably take a nap.  That was a lot of work, after all.  

Cecile Richards tells of her own abortion, “It was a decision my husband and I made. It was a personal decision. And we have three children that we adore and that are the center of my life. And we decided that was as big as our family needed to be. That was really the story. It wasn’t anything more dramatic than that." 

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards was asked, "When does life start? When does a human being become a human being?"

After equivocating a bit, Richards replied, "Every woman has to make her own decision." 
Pressed again to say when she thinks life begins, Richards said, "I'm a mother of three children. For me, life began when I delivered them. They've probably been the most important thing in my life ever since. But that's my own personal decision, right?"*

That's an interesting question.  Does my preference determine when my child's life begins?

While lawmakers struggle to draw the line, all the science agrees; conception marks the beginning of a distinct and uniquely identifiable life.  Consciousness, awareness, and viability emerge along the way, and full functionality precedes delivery by months.
   

Strong majorities of Americans think that abortion should be illegal after the first three months of pregnancy.  Planned Parenthood is currently leading a campaign to ensure that the United States remains one of seven countries in the world where elective abortions are legal later than five months into pregnancy.

*I don't think CEO Richards was completely truthful.  I don't think she watched her belly in the weeks before delivery and thought it was anything other than her living child.  As wiggling and heartbeat and hiccups and response to her voice were all obvious, I doubt she thought about dumping it in the trash.  I suspect she knew the truth but for political reasons, she said otherwise.  

Marriage and History

Marriage is a word we use, but the meaning is a little vague these days.  Is there a definition from history?  How might we arrive at an understanding that's both useful and helpful?

A recent conversation pointed out that mankind has seen a variety of arrangements for life-partnering, all generally categorized as 'marriage'.  So then, depending on where and when you look ...

• A man might have more than one wife, at least at some times in history. 
• A king might have had many wives and concubines. 
• A daughter might be given by her parents in return for some payment by the groom or his family.  
• Marriage might be forced on some by culture or community, and similarly it might be denied to others.
• Marriage might be the naive choice of the young or the thoughtful plan of those somewhat older.

Consent?  As for having a choice in the matter, consider the Afghan teen and his girl friend; they were dragged out of their car and beaten in public just for talking. In India, a daughter was strangled in her sleep because the family didn't approve of her boyfriend.

Politics?  In political circles, the relationship of a man and woman might include tremendous drama and intrigue as among the aristocracy and hereditary rulers during the age of empires.  That too was called marriage.

Equality?  In Africa, a couple of Christian gentlemen asked my opinion on wife beating.  Should our wives be beaten from time to time to keep them in line or only when they are disrespectful?  Their concept of marriage is different than mine.

So what is marriage, and whose definition is the right one?  From observation alone, it's difficult to say clearly what marriage might be and how it should work.  We don't find just one set of guidelines.  Such is the natural course of humankind as it accommodates the thinking of the day and place; emphasis on the word 'natural'.

Is there anything more to marriage than just convenience and accommodation, than human nature?

The conservative preference is narrow and simple, one husband and one wife for life, a view that comes from tradition.  The public discussion, however, lacks any particular content other than 'that's the rule'.  Does matching that definition satisfy the inquiry?  Is that the end of the question?

A thoughtful look might uncover that among all the natural ways of mankind, we're offered an extraordinary path that leads to the best possible destination.  "... and the two shall become one ...." There's more, of course, but the suggestion is that there is much more meaning and substance to marriage than just living together, something larger than just a convenient arrangement.  It suggests magnificence and a love not yet known.  It describes being extricated from selfishness and entering a more expansively beautiful place that's approachable only through personal sacrifice.  If true, then perhaps it's worth understanding.

What is it that we might be reaching for?  Is it a natural arrangement, or perhaps something more than what simple nature might offer?

Can a marriage be perfect?  Unlikely perhaps.  But can it be more?  Stunningly amazing?  Absolutely.

Ephesians 5:21-25




You might also 
appreciate:  Lies about love

Excess, what does it look like?

Versace zebra pants,
$850, sold out.

Regular folks are a bit put off by an ostentatious lifestyle. Bizarrely expensive cars, palatial houses, expensive meals, and prestigious wristwatches; it's all cringe-worthy.

How does someone get persuaded to such life values?  Is it by easily acquired wealth? Is it from being pampered by family or culture?  In a burgeoning economy, can personal luxury and comfort become the center of an individual's attention and life purpose?  Of course.

House of Palestinian businessman on the West Bank

Most agree that such lifestyle choices are shallow and of little substance, and we're pleased to note that we ourselves live a more reasonable life, that we're more concerned with things that really matter.

We'd perhaps buy $200 shoes, but certainly not $2000 shoes.

Interestingly, a nice $200 pair of shoes costs more than a month's income for half the world.  Uh oh.

For half of the world, the typical job tops out at perhaps $200/month. Resort workers in the Dominican Republic make $80-$180.  A luxury hotel concierge in Djibouti makes $170.  A service station worker in western Africa makes perhaps $65.  A security guard working 60 hours per week in Mombasa, Kenya makes $60/month.  The average state salary in Cuba is $25/month.
(The world median income is about $5/day/person.  In the developed world, the average is about $55/day/person.)

Startling illustrations by Cordaid paint the reality, perhaps a little too clearly.

Success for most of the world is simple; just food, clothing, shelter, and perhaps education possibilities for the kids so they can maybe have a better life. Folks farther down the ladder of wealth know they work harder than most, that opportunity is rare because of exploitation, and that their economy is artificially structured for the benefit of the few. For them, the existence of such excessive luxury elsewhere is a low-grade slap in the face. What do they think when they see the Kardashian-esque world? Mindless blobs living meaningless and valueless lives, that's what they see. Are they right?

The reasonable question that follows, what does our own position on the ladder suggest, and what might we do to sort it out meaningfully? It's for each to answer personally, not for others to judge, but it does require an answer. 
Somehow, it has to make sense.

PACs -- Political Action Crooks? Cronies? Clowns?

Entertaining politics - your donations may not go where you think.  Political action committees (PACs and SuperPacs) take in much more than they spend supporting (or opposing) candidates.  It can be a profitable business. (Reading the end of year reports at the Federal Election Commission is extraordinarily tedious, but proves the point.)

In a study of conservative political action committees, these 10 took in $54 million in one year: they paid themselves $50 million and spent $3.6 million on supporting the elections. That's less than a tenth that went to the actual purpose of the donations.

That $50 million came from gullible contributors hoping to make a difference, preserve national values, save the life of an unborn child. The PACs even raised money for candidates like Condoleezza Rice who had no interest in running. The PACs used the money for themselves, of course. It's not illegal, unfortunately, just unethical, immoral, dishonest, deceptive, conscienceless fraud, and deserving of more than harsh words.

Imagine the good work that $50M could have accomplished through responsible service organizations like World Vision or the Salvation Army. We could have effectively helped a few thousand families for ten years with education, healthcare, and food assistance. It could have made a difference.

1 share

Comments

Smart Lady  Boooooo
Like · Reply · 21 hrs

Other Smart Lady  Bingo
Like · Reply · 21 hrs

Smart Guy Yikes. Where did you find this info?
Like · Reply · 19 hrs

Old Guy Multiple sources. Rightwing News commissioned a study of 17 “big name conservative groups.” Many of those groups have already been identified as sleazy in numerous reports, but the conservative website admits many of those were likely shrugged off by GOP donors and activists.

“The problem with the articles that have come out so far is that most of them have come from liberal outlets and have only discussed limited aspects of a few organizations,” wrote John Hawkins, of Rightwing News. “That naturally led people to wonder if they were reading hit pieces.”

The 170-page report showed the vast majority of money spent last year by prominent conservative political action committees was “siphoned off to vendors, wasted, and just plain old pocketed by people in these PACs.”

Two Super PACs – Tea Party Army and Republicans for Immigration Reform – gave no money at all to candidates through independent expenditures or direct contributions, the study found.

Eight other groups – including The National Draft Ben Carson for President, Tea Party Express, SarahPAC, and Tea Party Patriots – gave less than 10 percent of their expenditures to candidates.

Like · Reply · 11 hrs

Old Guy It's been going on for a while, thus the term 'scam pac'.

http://thinkprogress.org/.../03/07/3362891/meet-scam-pacs/

Like · Reply · 11 hrs

Old Guy Fewer than one in seven of the roughly 300 super PACs and “hybrid” PACs that spent money in 2013 put funds toward calling for the election or defeat of a federal candidate, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of recent FEC filings.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/.../super-pac-leaders...

Super PAC leaders score perks from political donations

PUBLICINTEGRITY.ORG

Like · Reply  · 6 hrs

Old Guy From the Wall Street Journal recently ...

The ‘Conservative’ PACs Trolling for Your Money  

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-conservative-pacs-trolling-for-your-money-1431040712

Like · Reply · 6 hrs · 

Old Guy Campaign finance expert Paul S. Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center warns —  when donating to PACs and superPACs, it is really “donor beware.”  In the campaign finance culture that the Supreme Court and broken Federal Election Commission have created, donors may find that their political donations are doing little other than enriching political consultants and vendors.

Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Smart Guy Wow. I figured there was certainly some abuse.... but not this bad. It's like payday loans, except slightly shadier.
Like · Reply · 11 hrs

Smart Guy I guess a "Send Smart Guy to Hawaii Super PAC" isn't all that out of the question. unsure emoticon

Unlike · Reply · 1 · 1 hrs

These are the PACs that call the retiree's list of registered voters and solicit support, promising to stand firm on the voter's behalf.  Generally, they live on small donations from many.

The above money players are not to be confused with single-donor PACs where rich people can buy more influence.  That's the other extreme of our broken law and election regulations.

Both are adequate reason to be dissatisfied.

There are more than 4,000 registered PACs.

In 1907, Congress banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in the wake of the robber baron-era scandals. In 1947, the ban was formally applied to corporate expenditures and extended to cover labor unions.

In 1974, Congress enacted limits on individual contributions to federal candidates and political committees in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case removed the ban, holding that expenditures could not be limited, and that corporations could give unlimited amounts to other groups independently from the supported candidate.

The birth of the Super PAC legalized corruption in our elections.

On the subject:  CNN, Huffington Post, Salon, DailyFinance

Accidents happen

... but poverty isn't one of them.

Did you know that more than one in five children in the US live in poverty?  How might that have happened?

No one succeeds on their own.  Everyone needs help along the way.

Think about your own kids.  

You feed them for free because if you don't, they'll die.

You shelter them for free because if you don't they'll die.

You get them the health care they need, and you protect them every day.

Keeping them alive is just the first task of a parent.  The big one is equipping them and making a place in the world for them.  Education, training and thinking, decisions and interactions, skills and grace and strength.  When they stumble along the way, you help them get up and back on track. You fight for them and defend them and pray for them; you have their back and applaud their success.

Family does that.  Community does that.  Christians do that.  Food for today, sure, but equipping and enabling for life is the greater service needed.  Food stamps are perhaps just one small part of helping folks get on track and have a life.

What are the key elements of falling into poverty and for rising up out of poverty?  Thought about it?  Anything we might help with?

World Governance

One World Government - it's now the likely future, according to economists.

Prophets of doom and their signs of the end! 

World governance today has taken an interesting turn.  It is a bit of a surprise for those who expected governments to grow closer together and merge into the prophesied one-world government, perhaps in collaboration with the UN.  That or some similar path has been described by doom-cryers over the years.

What few expected was the subordination of governments by big business.  Regulatory changes purchased by corporate influence in recent decades have spawned multi-national corporations and banks that are bigger and politically more powerful than countries.

Businesses we remember from years ago have been purchased whole or in part by other businesses.  Brand names we thought were competitors all belong to a single parent corporation.  Banks we thought were staid and reasonably sized are now financially larger than countries and more powerful as well.  Given standing by the Supreme Court, corporations exercise more power and leverage in Washington than any other influence group.  Similarly around the world, corporations have greater influence than governments on foreign trade policies.  The extraordinarily influential oil industry comes to mind for its part in regional conflicts in Africa and the Middle East.  The war in Iraq is acknowledged to have fought for Big Oil.  This century's trade agreements serve big business almost exclusively.  Of the world's 100 largest economies, 63 are countries, and 37 are corporations.

Network Diagram of Linear Granger-causality relationships that are statistically significant at the 5% level

among the monthly returns of the 25 largest (in terms of average AUM) banks, broker/dealers, insurers, and

hedge funds over January 1994 to December 1996. The type of institution causing the relationship is

indicated by color: green for broker/dealers, red for hedge funds, black for insurers, and blue for banks.

Granger-causality relationships are estimated including autoregressive terms and filtering out 

heteroskedasticity with a GARCH(1,1) model.

Corporate goals are profit and winning.  The corporate ethic is exclusively bottom-line.  The only ethical constraints on their activities are in regulations imposed by governments, all progressively weaker over recent decades.

The financial and insurance industries are even more interconnected than the manufacturing sectors.  The degree of overlapping investment and interdependence has increased explosively.

As regulatory constraints were removed, banking morphed and merged into investment groups, hedge funds, and currency exchanges.  Risks increased exponentially, and unethical practices emerged faster than governments and oversight agencies could contain them.  They gave us the Great Recession which cost trillions from the pockets of the people.  The finance industry professionals came out rather well with mega-bonuses in the same year that investors and the economy experienced giga- and tera-losses.  We haven't recovered yet, nor will most of the citizenry except for the wealthiest 10%.

Foolish parents allow their children to play on the cliff tops. The results are predictable and in this case, probably irreversible. The question for us is perhaps how we might make our way forward individually and as a nation as the changes become more intrusive.

The banking industry has been transformed in recent years, not only with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in

1999, but also through financial innovations like securitization that have blurred the distinction between loans, bank

deposits, securities, and trading strategies.  The types of business relationships between these sectors have also changed,

with banks and insurers providing credit to hedge funds and also competing against them through their own

proprietary trading desks, and hedge funds using insurers to provide principal protection for their funds
while simultaneously competing with them by offering capital-market-intermediated insurance such as

catastrophe-linked bonds.

Prophets have spoken about events at the end of the age.  We're curious what they might have been shown that provoked the descriptions they've left for us.  What did they really see?  As the years pass, it perhaps becomes a bit clearer.  What's the good response on our part?

Ref: Econometric Measures of Connectedness and Systemic Risk in the Finance and Insurance Sectors
Ref: An Incredible Look At The Exploding Levels Of Financial Industry Interconnectedness