Whenever we discuss medically necessary cesarean we enter questionable waters. It’s really simple to purporte that a lady “needs” a cesarean for whatever reason, even when she does not. I discovered this specific article, compiled by an gynecologist both deeply disturbing and incredibly informative all at one time.

The physician talks of the patient arriving who’s minimally dilated (to some one) and that he proceeds to explain how he augments her labor. He highlights something that’s telling:

“The simple truth is, an gynecologist can persuade just about any patient anytime that the cesarean is the greatest choice. I possibly could have told this lady the transient dips within the heart beat concerned me which I suggested surgery to avoid her baby from being hurt. Couple of patients, hearing individuals words, would refuse. Basically carried out a cesarean, I possibly could get rid of the risk that something would fail later. Within the mind-group of an gynecologist, this really is key.”

Couple of patients hearing this can refuse. This is important, isnt it? Parents desire a healthy baby. It’s more essential for them than surgery. I agreed for many additional shots and treatments I did not want because I needed that healthy baby. I selected it on the vacuum extraction because I felt it had been safer compared to vacuum for my baby, but a cut on me only hurt my body. Despite the fact that I wasn’t a parent yet, I loved that baby a lot more than other things.

Though individuals who hate natural birthing accuse these pregnant advocates of selecting the “experience” over the healthiness of the infant, they’re completely wrong. We love them about our babies. For example, I was using a new site that helps you select baby boy names by soliciting help from your family (http://babynames.net). This is clearly about the “experience”. We do appreciate these for our baby during the pregnancy, and it demonstrates the line we draw.

A lot of women that like ending the pregnancy at home with live birth achieve this not because they do not worry about their babies- however they understand that the quote previously mentioned is extremely honest. Bottomline is they dont want to become lied to by somebody in authority and also over this type of event. Everyone wants healthy babies- but we think that we are able to most frequently securely birth our babies with no surgery.

Expectant moms are now being urged to go for “normal” vaginal delivery when having a baby, using the government keen to chop the price of increasing quantity of caesareans. But as present day G2 discloses, a lot of women doctors, given their understanding from the perils of giving birth, decide to have c-sections. Performs this mean caesareans are safer or will it basically reflect that healthcare professionals and related surgeons deal most abundant in distressing births?

Some of the doctors questioned by G2 blame advocates of natural giving birth, including individuals who promote home and unassisted delivery, to make women feel below par about choosing for caesareans. Additionally they indicate the kind of the “livebirth” pioneer Margaret Billings for unrealistically raising women’s anticipation of natural giving birth. On her behalf website, Billings creates: “Birth is a hugely important thing to keep in mind. Its beautiful- although not when it is handled, controlled and altered through the medical establishment, hospitals, birthing centers or impeded through the mother’s own mind.” Personally, I’m not sure any ladies who are terribly passionate about having a baby.

Links:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595040/
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/pregnancy_gateway/index.html

Floral preserves and syrups were quite popular in days of yore, and are a wonderfully delicious way to enjoy a number of blooms. Violet syrup is a lovely treat drizzled over lemon infused waffles or mixed into your iced tea. The syrup (or jelly, if you prefer) is easily prepared by filling a quart jar with lightly packed violet blossoms. When picking make sure you are choosing violets which have not been sprayed with anything, and remove the stems before use (while the stems are edible, they can give the end product a bitter taste). I like to rinse my violets in a sieve under the sprinkler attachment of my sink before continuing. Fill the jar with boiling water, cover and allow to steep overnight. When finished steeping, line a sieve with cheesecloth and strain out the blossoms, reserving the liquid. At this point you will want to prepare* your canning jars, lids, and rings before proceeding with the rest of the recipe.

Measure your violet infusion, and add water enough to make two cups of liquid. Up to now your violet infusion is most likely a lovely shade of royal blue. Add two tablespoons fresh lemon juice and the liquid will turn a brilliant magenta color. In a large non-reactive pot combine the liquid and 3 ½ sugar and add ½ teaspoon butter or margarine to reduce foaming if you like. Bring to a full rolling boil on high heat. Now if you want syrup continue boiling for ten minutes. If you’re making jelly you’ll want to stir in one packet of liquid pectin (I tend to use Certo, but Ball makes some as well), return to a full rolling boil and continue boiling for exactly one minute, stirring all the while. For both syrup and jelly you will want to remove your pot from the heat, ladle your hot liquid into your prepared jars leaving ⅛ headspace. Seal your jars and process* in a boiling-water bath for five minutes, then remove and allow to cool upright and naturally.

This same recipe can be used to make herb jellies and syrups. You might try it with peppermint, lavender, or lemon verbena. Homemade treats like these are easy ways to enjoy the flavors of the seasons year-round, and make lovely gifts. I like to make the jewel toned violet jelly and can it up in little 4oz ‘quilted’ pattern jars to give as gifts throughout the year. Next up in this series will be baking with dandelion blossoms!

*For those of you new to or not familiar with home-canning, I recommend referencing a canning guide such as the Ball Blue Book or the USDA Principles of Home Canning Guide, which is conveniently available as a PDF.

It’s amazing to me how quickly the Overton Window has moved to the right pertaining to free money for banks. Six months ago, when Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson suggested their Free Money For Banks plan, the near universal reaction was “Say wha?” But after six months of the same idea being recirculated and repeated, Tim Geithner’s latest proposal, which is essentially the same thing that Bernanke wanted half a year ago, now people are starting to say, “That’s not as bad as it could be, I guess.”

Repetition can make anything true if you give it long enough. And even in the short term, it can make an awful idea sound not so awful after all.

And now we hear more mumbo-jumbo about frozen assets and undervalued assets. Has it not occurred to anyone that these assets are frozen because they know that Buddy Tim is eventually gonna pay more than market value for them? Why sell now when you know that you can get a higher price later? And what makes Buddy Tim so sure that the market is so wrong about the value of these assets in the first place? We’re asked to believe that a market solution is the best solution because Free Markets are always awesome, and then simultaneously believe that the markets are really wrong now so don’t trust them and let Buddy Tim set the prices on everything.

And why are the banks the big priority anyway? It should be common knowledge that banks don’t actually make anything. Banks shift paper and money around, and make a good profit at it. There’s nothing wrong with shifting paper around, or making money at it; it’s an important function in a modern society. But it’s hardly the most essential or basic function. And it’s not a function that somehow only these particular people are able to do. So why is fixing the banks the top priority? And why is it that we’re fixing the banks by giving lots of money to the exact same people who screwed up the banks in the first place?

When it came time to bailout GM (a company that actually makes something) we had to renegotiate everybody’s salary and pensions. Fair enough. They were getting a lot of public help, so asking for a few concession made sense. But now that we’re bailing out the banks, again, we once again hear about the sanctity of contracts and how the AIG countermeasures simply must be paid or else something Bad will happen. Do they think we forgot how it worked with that other company a few months ago? Contracts can always be renegotiated, and a contract is only as good as a judge says it is. I don’t understand why President Obama is acting as if the AIG contracts are the final and absolute word on everything.

But now, despite the fact that banks don’t actually make anything, and despite the fact that contracts can be renegotiated or annulled altogether, Barack’s Buddy Tim is proposing the same old plan once more time. News Flash: It still sucks. Why does President Obama love it? Read this interview with President Obama and then try to explain it to me because I don’t get it:

There are two countries who have gone through some big financial crises over the last decade or two. One was Japan, which never really acknowledged the scale and magnitude of the problems in their banking system and that resulted in what’s called “The Lost Decade.” They kept on trying to paper over the problems. The markets sort of stayed up because the Japanese government kept on pumping money in. But, eventually, nothing happened and they didn’t see any growth whatsoever.

Sweden, on the other hand, had a problem like this. They took over the banks, nationalized them, got rid of the bad assets, resold the banks and, a couple years later, they were going again. So you’d think looking at it, Sweden looks like a good model. Here’s the problem; Sweden had like five banks. [LAUGHS] We’ve got thousands of banks. You know, the scale of the U.S. economy and the capital markets are so vast and the problems in terms of managing and overseeing anything of that scale, I think, would — our assessment was that it wouldn’t make sense. And we also have different traditions in this country.

Obviously, Sweden has a different set of cultures in terms of how the government relates to markets and America’s different. And we want to retain a strong sense of that private capital fulfilling the core — core investment needs of this country.

And so, what we’ve tried to do is to apply some of the tough love that’s going to be necessary, but do it in a way that’s also recognizing we’ve got big private capital markets and ultimately that’s going to be the key to getting credit flowing again.

He understands that Japan’s solution to the same problem didn’t work. And he understands that Sweden’s solution did. And he’s decided to go with Japan’s.

Say wha? He makes the distinction of scale between the U.S. problem and the Swedish problem, which is a worthwhile distinction to make. But then he implies that the Swedish solution can’t work here because the scale is different. Oh really? Says who? And more importantly: Why will Japan’s solution, which didn’t work on their smaller scale, suddenly work on our bigger scale? He’s talking gibberish, and I don’t like it.

A big hullabaloo was made over President Obama’s Nowruz greeting to Iran (Nowruz is the Iranian spring equinox/new year celebration). The Obamamaniacs seem to think it was a singularly brilliant foreign policy maneuver. Never mind that Bush did basically the same thing last year and nobody was offering to fellate him over it.

Unlike the Obama throng, however, The Ayatollah isn’t exactly thrilled:

“They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven’t seen any change,” Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.

I never thought I’d say it, but, The Ayatollah Khamenei has a point!

Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message…

“Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged,” Khamenei said.

I think Khameni should relax. At the rate we’re going with managing the banks, once our financial system collapses, we won’t be able to afford the empire anymore and we’ll finally leave Iran alone.