Define Pro-Life

by muon

You'd think, regardless how far apart the factions of this country are on the abortion issue, there's one thing we all ought to be able to agree on. No matter when you believe life starts, or for that matter, when you believe life ends, we all ought to agree that in between the start and end, human beings are alive. Anyone out there have an issue with that? Speak up.

Today I heard a priest--one I like and respect--say that we needed to protect life "from the moment of conception until the moment of..." Knowing this priest, I expected him to say "...until the moment of death." He didn't. He said "...until the moment of birth." I was dumbfounded. What about the rest of life?

To me, anyone calling themselves pro-life ought to commit to an across-the-board definition. Otherwise, you're only anti-abortion. What about the moment after birth, when that new baby may need extraordinary measures to keep him alive? If the family has no health care insurance, will that baby, "protected" until the moment of birth end up dying because he had to be born at home with no medical personnel in attendance?

What about as that baby grows up? Will he have decent nutrition? Or will he develop malnutrition issues or childhood obesity, because his neighborhood is a junk food mecca and a fresh food desert? Will he fail to get an adequate education because his public school was taken over by a for-profit company? Will he be stuck in a cycle of poverty the rest of his "life?" Will he be seduced into illegal activities as the only way to survive, because he can't get a job without an education? Will he end up being "protected" in the prison system? Will he take possibly the one honorable option open to him, and join the military, possibly to die in a war that supports only the interests of multinational corporations? Will he survive that and return home instead physically or mentally disabled, perhaps with a shorter life expectancy and a burden to society? Assuming of course, that legislators leave the social programs in place that would allow him to "live" at all.  Will he have food and fuel and clothing and healthcare, and Social Security in his later years, to allow him to stay alive?

In my opinion, you've got no business going around puffing out your chest, claiming you're pro-life, unless you commit to it whole hog. If you want to define pro-life as anti-abortion, fine, but you'd better include anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-poverty, anti-sickness, anti-ignorance, and anti-everything else that doesn't give each baby born a chance at a long, productive life. If you can commit to all these things, then I'm okay with your preaching to me about it from the pulpit. I may not agree with all your politics, but I'll feel you have a real respect for human life. Otherwise, don't tell me who to vote for. Come to think of it, don't tell me who to vote for either way.

This is why, this week, I'm supporting the Nuns On The Bus. They're a group of American Catholic sisters who are traveling from Des Moines to Washington, DC, trying to educate people about the plight of the poor in America. These days, we aren't talking about the poor as a tiny percentage of the population--half of the population earns less than $35,000 annually. The poverty level right now includes nearly a quarter of all Americans. The Nuns are bringing attention to Republican policies, and particularly the Paul Ryan budget, which would eliminate so many social programs that at least give poorer Americans a chance to survive past those "protected" months before birth.

The Nuns were told by the Catholic hierarchy to quit wasting all their time on the poor and instead, hop aboard the anti-abortion bandwagon. The sisters refused. They understand the meaning of pro-life.

Go sisters!

The 7-Figure Donor

by Ruth A. Sheets

This morning I heard a story that, had it not been NPR, I would have thought I was listening to a “Saturday Night Live” sketch.  A seven-figure donor to a super PAC complained about the level of criticism he has received since his check was written.  He was startled that folks might object to his contribution.

One can’t help but wonder where Mr. Vandersloot has been.  He intends to help to buy an election and he worries people will find out and that some might not be pleased.  He claims he has lost business and has even received some death threats. 

I certainly think the death threats, if he has received them, are appalling and wrong in every way.  Losing business, though, that is fair.  Mr. V. is clearly using his profits to get politically involved.  It seems to me that an effective way for citizens to object to a particular donation is to stop using the product or service of the donor.

The wealthy, the 1%, have been accused of being “out of touch.”  Yes, Mr. V. is out of touch.  I can’t help but wonder at his naivete.  Does he really believe his money entitles him to do whatever he wants to do, and that no one will respond?  Of course he does. 

With the “Citizens United” ruling by the Supreme Court calling money speech, how can the wealthy not try to make their opinion more weighty than that of the average citizen?  Isn’t more money more speech?

In their attempt to be “fair,” NPR actually found people to support Mr. V.’s position that no one should have to know about his donation.  The Koch brothers were sympathetically cited as people maligned for making large contributions.  Those Koch brothers used their funds to spread lies and half-truths against Democrats in Wisconsin and other states.  Of course, not under their own name, but through a Super PAC that is not to be held accountable for whatever they put out there.

It is obscene that anyone should feel entitled to contribute millions of dollars to influence elections, with or without their names being attached to the donation.  Such large money contributions, speech or not, shouldn’t be able to buy candidates.

When people contribute to Super PACs or any other political influence machine, they are buying a service, and the PACs should then be taxed as a service provider.  I am thinking of oh, 40% or so.  That’s higher than the wealthy are paying now in taxes, so I think it is a way to help the deficit and to limit huge donations.  Oh wait, Congress would never pass such a law since they have been bought by the very Super PACs that would be taxed.  Darn!

GOOD BUSINESSMAN?

by Ruth A. Sheets

Mr. Potter was a "good businessman" in A Wonderful Life

Lately, it seems that we are bombarded with the idea that Mitt Romney is such a great businessman that, of course, we need him as president.  I can’t help but wonder what his definition of a “Good Businessman” is.

If one examines the kinds of POLICIES Romney and his supporters are in favor of, it MIGHT NOT seem anything like good business practice. 

Is it good business to. . .  

- give the banking industry self-regulation even though they have proven unable to effectively regulate themselves, nearly bringing down the world economy?

- cut your workforce, then blame the lack of high profits on a tax rate that is too high, not on the fact that people don’t have enough money to pay for your product or service.

- use the “drill baby drill” mantra before the real safety hazards are understood.

- use up natural resources with no solid plans for what will happen when the resource runs out – have they forgotten what is happening to the fishing industry?

- destroy whole sections of THE ENVIRONMENT so that no one else can use or enjoy it in order to acquire coal, timber, and minerals as cheaply as possible. 

   

- outsource jobs and continue to be subsidized by taxpayers for the cost of moving abroad, or moving to other states where they don’t have to deal with unions or environmentalists.

- pay their CEO’s, CFO’s and other high-level folks huge salaries while they lay off thousands of workers, trained people, potential customers?

Mitt Romney and his supporters see no problem with companies like the investment firm where he worked making huge profits from the misfortune of other companies.  Romney claims it is deserved because they take such high risks.  The reality is that there is almost no risk, just a loan shark way of doing business that brings high profits to investment firms.

This model seems amoral.  If these are good business practices, we are in trouble.  State and local governments all over the country are in the process of privatizing many jobs that have been public and have been working well for a long time.  The worst part is that the business practices described above, the lack of morals, and the role of greed do not bode well for anyone.  Officials will exchange good living wage jobs for a quick buck. 

So, when Mitt cries that he is a “good businessman” that may not be a compliment.  He is telling us that he and his supporters plan to dig us in deeper than we already find ourselves.  But, he and his will come out just fine. 

We, the 99% need to be vigilant, although I am not sure that will make much difference these days.  The money these “good businessmen” can spend can buy us and shape our reality and we won’t know it until it is too late.

Our Generation

Today guest blogger, S. W. Elliot, is a 9th grade student.

Our Generation

by S. W. Elliot

The booty shaking, provoking of fights;

The laughter at someone else’s misery;

Babies having babies. Girls thinking it’s cute;

Boys having more sexual partners than their mothers' ages and theirs put together;

“Our Generation” and I use this term very lightly;

Society teaches us to be like these “role models;”

Females wear clothes so tight that they can’t breathe;

Males do anything to acquire money, fame, and power;

Mothers don’t teach their daughters how to be women

because they are trying to be their friend

or weren’t taught to be a woman themselves;

Fathers not even in the picture to teach their sons how to be men;

More man than they will be;

And this is “Our Generation;”

The killing, the wanting to be involved, the wanting to be loved;

So many diseases, so many pregnant teens;

All of this could have been avoided;

Condoms, birth control, not having sex at all!

The solutions to this

All of this because all children want is a mother’s love, a father’s protection;

The ideal picture of how a family should be;

Violence, hate, “love,” obesity,

having unprotected sex, babies having babies,

boys trying to be men,

how society wants us to be portrayed;

And this is what “Our Generation” consists of…

Nibbling at Our Rights

by Ruth A. Sheets

Is it just me or is there a concerted effort to bit by bit take away rights of American citizens?

The evidence, laws are being passed, in the name of stopping voter fraud, requiring photo I.D. in order to vote.  There is no structure to insure that everyone can get that I.D. free of charge and with a minimum of inconvenience.  That should remind us of the poll taxes and other voting restrictions applied to African-Americans and some poor Whites in the pre-anti poll tax -Constitutional amendment times in the South.

States have passed “Stand Your Ground” laws which allow someone with a gun to shoot a person, even if the person is unarmed.  What about the rights of the unarmed?

America's Security Complex has obtained enormous power in our nation.  The “War on Terror” has so mobilized them that it is now permissible to detain American citizens indefinitely under the guise of “stopping terrorists." It is also possible to use drones against Americans suspected of terrorism.  What about due process?

Now, we learn that the Congress has just passed in its “Defense” bill that we Americans are allowed to be propagandized.  Of course, we have the right to turn off the TV or not buy the newspapers and magazines that contain such propaganda, but how do we know when we are receiving the truth and when lies in the guise of truth?

Regulation is now being described as unnecessary, job destroying.  The wealthy and powerful would say “anything goes” in a free market.  What about the rights of people to have clean air and water, to have safe food and medicines?  What about the right to be part of a working economy?

When people assemble to protest their loss of rights, they are met with anger, police violence, and negative media coverage, even though the protesters have the right to be there.

OK, so these are not “official” rights like freedom of speech, religion, etc., but they are rights that have come to at least partially represent what it means to be American.  One can’t help but wonder if the folks who are working to limit the rights of fellow citizens are aware of what they are doing and the consequences.  

It seems to me that this nibbling at our rights is more dangerous to us than terrorism because it has the power of a huge bomb, but the stealth of a deadly disease.  Unfortunately, I am not sure the average American has either the weapons or the will to fight it.