A refuge in time of trouble

More than half of all refugees are children.  -- 2015
(From the Human Rights Watch - We've not
 been able to locate this child.)

An exhausted child cries on the railway tracks between Serbia and Hungary as night falls.

International response to today's refugee crisis continues to be a volatile issue.  The individuals involved are invisible in our public discussions. 

There are 65 million people who have been forced to flee their homes. The number of refugees in the world has reached the highest level ever recorded, according to the United Nations.

“At sea, a frightening number of refugees and migrants are dying each year.  On land, people fleeing war are finding their way blocked by closed borders.”

UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi
UN Update 11 JUN 17

The reasons are threefold:

• Conflicts that cause large refugee outflows, like Somalia and Afghanistan – now in their third and fourth decade respectively, are lasting longer.
• Dramatic new or reignited conflicts and situations of insecurity are occurring more frequently. While today’s largest is Syria, wars have broken out in the past five years in South Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Ukraine, and the Central African Republic, while thousands more people have fled raging gang and other violence in Central America.
• The rate at which solutions are being found for refugees and internally displaced people has been on a falling trend since the end of the Cold War, leaving a growing number in limbo.

Update: More than 80 percent of Syrian refugees registered

 in Lebanon are women and children.  July '17

“We’re stuck here. We can’t go on and we can’t go back,” said Hikmat, a Syrian farmer driven from his land by war, now living in tent outside a shopping centre in Lebanon with his wife and young children. “My children need to go to school, they need a future,” he added.

The U.N. found that three countries produce half the world’s international refugees. Syria at 4.9 million, Afghanistan at 2.7 million, and Somalia at 1.1 million together accounted for more than half the refugees under UNHCR’s mandate worldwide.  For national (internally displaced) refugees, the greatest numbers are in Colombia at 6.9 million, Syria at 6.6 million, and Iraq at 4.4 million.

After seven days on the run young

Nyanchau, who is internally 

displaced, chews on the dry

flesh of a palm nut in 

Rumbek, South Sudan.

©  UNHCR - Rocco Nuri

While the spotlight has been on Europe’s challenge to manage more than 1 million refugees and migrants who arrived via the Mediterranean, the U.N. report shows that the vast majority of the world’s refugees were in developing countries in the global south.

Two displaced Yemeni children, Muna, 9 and Swkina 8, stand

outside their family’s tent in the Darwin camp - in Yemen’s

northern province of Amran. © UNHCR - Yahya Arhab

Worldwide, Turkey is the biggest host country, with 2.5 million refugees. Lebanon, with nearly one refugee for every five citizens, hosts more refugees compared to its population than any other country.

Children make up 51% of the world’s refugees, according to the data UNHCR was able to gather (complete demographic data is not always available). Many are separated from their parents or travelling alone.

In light of the extraordinary human crisis, what might be our personal response?  Our national response?

We can help.
Contribute to the work (and here) or perhaps get involved.  WorldVision.Org accomplishes more than most in addressing the underlying causes.

Party time!

Two Parties? Why just two?

In real life, few issues can really be defined by just two sides.  There are often as many sides as there are participants in the discussion.  Pro-lifers and pro-choicers span a spectrum of positions from absolute through various shades of moderation.  Issues of science, conscience, law, culture, and autonomy are worth discussion and understanding, but we're offered instead an either/or. It's the same for taxes, business regulation, economics, the constitution, and foreign relations.

So why is our choice in representation limited to either/or?  The chance of a candidate actually representing my views and yours is rather small.

From the Wikipedia article on U.S. political parties, the 2016 charts shows a bit about your chance of being represented in national and state legislatures.

Political Parties	House of Representatives	Senate
Republican Party	247	54
Democratic Party	186	44
Independent	0	2
Vacant	2	0

Political Parties	State Lower Chamber Seats	State Upper Chamber Seats	Governorships
Republican Party	3,043	1,133	32
Democratic Party	2,344	832	17
Vermont Progressive Party	6	3	0
Libertarian Party	2	2	0
Working Families Party	1	1	0
Conservative Party of New York State	1	0	0
Independence Party of New York	1	0	0
Independent	13	3	1
Vacant	4	3	0
Total	5,411	1,972	50

We've attempted to spin off support for more than just those two extremes, but so far, it's hasn't really made the difference we need.  We've been this way for a long time; did we make the right choice?

Divided, we fall, we're told, and we are a polarized and in many ways divided nation.  I wonder what it would be like if we had half a dozen major parties and a couple dozen significant minor ones.  Would we talk to each other instead of about each other?  Would we find it necessary to discuss and understand?  We'd need collaboration to succeed, I suspect, and compromise.

Could a strict constructionist sit down with a libertarian and a neo-liberal, agree on a goal, and find a path they could support?  Perhaps.  Could they learn from each other?  Sure, if there was an honest dialog.

For now, the D&Rs share the stage, each with a catastrophically narrow view of the nation, the future, and the possibilities.  It makes a difference.

An extraordinary philosopher

A relatively unknown philosopher unveils the centerpiece of human existence.

"Everything that matters is relational," our philosopher explains.

In a detailed analysis of quality-of-life issues, an organizational professional and philosopher detailed the various elements of successful living. Interestingly, when reviewed from the bottom up, there appears to be a baseline threshold above which 'more' of anything makes little difference. Above that threshold, issues like wealth and possessions, luxury and convenience add little to the quality of  life as individuals explain in their own self-evaluation.

A person who lives in poverty is greatly served by rising up to a measure of adequacy for food, shelter, access to employment, education, and healthcare.  Above that line, adding more makes little difference in self-described life-quality.

One factor, however, rises on a continuous path to the very peak of significance.  On a scale of one to ten, we might mark the mentioned baseline threshold at two or three.  That would be enough for a good life, and fancier versions of residence or transportation would make little quality difference.  The one exception, rising to a ten on the scale, is personal relationships.  "Everything that matters is relational," our philosopher explains.

Adventures in travel, success at work, financial milestones, all are of little impact unless they are shared, unless they add to the life of another.  The memorable events of our lives are most often related to folks we love and hope to serve well rather than events involving just places and things.

Real Life:  Not surprisingly, parents and astronauts have a difficult time keeping that in perspective.  For parents, one child is a difficult task.  Two is impossible.  Five is a life-consuming brain and body drain.  There are so many details, particularly in the developed world, that have to be handled; it's hard for mom and dad to get a peaceful moment.  In retrospect, though, the first remembered and best recollections are related to family and especially, the children.  For astronauts, it's probably hard to top a spacewalk.

As for parenting:  the easier version of parenting doesn't appear until the first grandchild arrives.  Then you have the comfortable leisure to enjoy the week-to-week changes in the child.  New facial expressions, developing hand-eye coordination, deepening relationship and love bonding, and fascinating interactions.  Grandfather's have time to enjoy such things while the parents do all the hard work.

My granddaughter, like her mother before her, is the centerpiece of why life is so enjoyable these days.  Happiness springs up at the thought of her company.  She's perhaps not all there is to life, but she's extraordinary.  Of course.

So in the larger view of life, each relational context can add or subtract quality.  Our impact on others, on each individual whose life we can touch, is determined by the quality of the relationship and interaction.  If we do well, they're blessed.

You can be a world changer for that one to whom you have relational access.  Or you can ruin their day/year/decade ...

Knowing this, how might we plan the investment of our lives?  We can choose to be loving, supportive, encouraging, and graciously informative, can we not?  It's practical and active, not feelings, by the way.  And, it's two-way; if we do well, we're both blessed.

The way we relate to others is actually number two on the authoritative list of important understandings.  "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."  Know what the first is?  :)

The photo at the top is my granddaughter, by the way.  We spent the day together, reading books, walking in the sunshine, and a first attempt at assisted tree-climbing.  I'll remember that day forever, but I can't remember a single thing of similar significance from that week (or month) at work.

Thanks and a hat tip to the great philosopher, Tim Frink.

Galatians 5:13Amplified Bible (AMP)

For you, my brothers, were called to freedom; only do not let your freedom become an opportunity for the sinful nature (worldliness, selfishness), but through love [a] serve and seek the best for one another.

[a]Footnote: The key to understanding this and other statements about love is to know that this love (the Greek word agape) is not so much a matter of emotion as it is of doing things for the benefit of another person, that is, having an unselfish concern for another and a willingness to seek the best for them.

Free Shipping!? There's no such thing.

"Free Shipping and Handling, 10% Cash Back, and more!"  

Any chance they're doing you a favor? Of course not.  It sounds good, but it's a lie advertisers use to make their deal look more attractive.  The cost of shipping is added to the total cost, and that's what you pay.  Nobody is going to step up and pay part of it for you.

We need to understand, marketing is about sales, and the industry will stretch to the very limits of the law in how they present their product line.  

The movie, Consuming Kids, throws desperately needed light

on the practices of a relentless multi-billion dollar marketing

machine that now sells kids and their parents everything from

junk food and violent games to bogus educational products

and the family car. Drawing on the insights of health care

professionals, children's advocates, and industry insiders, the

film focuses on the explosive growth of child marketing in the

wake of deregulation, showing how youth marketers have used

advances in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience

to transform American children into one of the most powerful

and profitable consumer demographics in the world. Consuming

Kids pushes back against the wholesale commercialization of

childhood, raising urgent questions about the ethics of children's

marketing and its impact on the health and well-being of kids.

Written by The Media Education Foundation.

From an ethical perspective, every billboard, every product

advertisement, every infomercial, every celebrity

endorsement is a manipulative attempt to

persuade without regard to your benefit.

Explain that to your kids.

More importantly, our children need to be told how to differentiate truth from persuasion and coercion.  If we don't explain it to them, they'll believe it.

Tell your kids about advertising, how it is not about information but about convincing you to buy things.  Talk about ads as they show up, "why would they use a cute dog in that ad about a car?"  

There are no neutral ads.  All of them are attempting to persuade or to extract money.  The multi-billion dollar advertising industry thrives on our collective gullibility.
  
Before their teen years, children generally do not have the clarity on their own to differentiate between information and persuasion.  Tell them.  Make it fun, a contest even.  

Celebrity endorsements are ... advertising.  Reverse mortgages aren't better because some celebrity (i.e., rich mouthpiece) tells you they are.

Fun music with dogs ... (Gimme, gimme, I'm worth it) is advertising.  Cute, but they're after your money and nothing else.


You might find Commercialized Children useful along with Commercialized Children - Continued.
.

The Lesser of Two Wevils

Choosing between any two distasteful options is sometimes described as the lesser of two evils, the one likely to do less harm, perhaps.


If the choices are both evil, is their a higher path?  Is there a third option acceptable to conscience?


Or do we have to live with having put our stamp of approval on some dancing weevil?  Can I face years of knowing I had anything to do with it? The destruction of foreign policy, the economic collapse, the upheaval in the court systems, the world turmoil ...  :)  Yeah, though I walk through the valley of whatever, I will fear no weevil.

This year's election includes many offices to be filled and perhaps some ballot initiatives as well.  We'll perhaps skirt that dark insectivoreal realm as we participate, but with liberty comes responsibility.





My wife so hates puns, she wouldn't even let me read this one to her.  

Welfare - Follow the money

A Berkeley study, “The High Public Cost of Low Wages” found that besides stagnant and poverty-level wages, the dearth of employer-provided benefits mean that minimum-wage workers in the United States are even more reliant on federal and state-run public assistance programs than we have been told.

FedGov spends $125+ billion, and states collectively spend $25+ billion on assistance programs just for working families each year. That $150+ billion is not only being spent to help working Americans live, it is yet another instance of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare.  Taxpayers subsidize businesses that are reaping record profits on their highly-productive and low-paid workers.  We pay their prices and we pay taxes to assist their underpaid workforce.  Corporate welfare.

Our tax dollars are taking up the slack and subsidizing highly-profitable corporate employers who refuse to pay a living wage.  That specific reason is why there is a need for a federal minimum wage.  Many employers, particularly large corporate employers will never pay decent wages unless they are forced to.  Since Congress has failed to maintain the initiative, the minimum wage is now a poverty wage, and it is left to taxpayers to “bear a significant portion of the hidden costs of low-wage work in America.”  The failure was visible long before the turn of the century.

Follow the money.  Do your own inquiry.  The extraordinary flow of wealth from the bottom of the economic ladder to the top has accelerated over recent decades.  Persistent poverty, economic and political disenfranchisement, discrimination and inequality, all are visible and generally understood, but not addressed.  The trend is now global.

What if it were all about just one child who didn't get enough to eat, who was stunted and undernourished before age five, who couldn't finish school because of poverty caused by prejudice or class or tribal discrimination.  Or died from starvation.  Now, what if it were your child who faced such unjust exclusion from a good life.  How might you respond?

Can you perhaps imagine how a billion people spread across the world who live in that unjust circumstance today might feel.

You can't fix the world, but you can make a difference.  Extricate yourself from the herd, shed the nonsense of irrelevant style and luxury and unnecessary possessions.  The typical middle-class family in the developed world can easily provide effective assistance for three or more families and their children.  Ask me how.  Or Go See for Yourself.

Or take a look at Change Makers and Help Bringers.

Did you know that college in Kenya (University of Nairobi) costs about $1500 per year.  If you could come up with $125/month, you could help a young person through college.  And graduate school.  Or trade school.  You'd give them a chance, a life.  That's perhaps a worthwhile project for you and your family, and it's deductible.

Elementary school in coastal Africa costs about $40/semester for uniforms and supplies and fees, and they usually get a meal at school.  You could sponsor schooling for 10 kids for about $35/month.

Take care of your family first, of course.  If you get to where you're doing well, could you lend a hand to a few others?  Or many?