Schneiderman v. Mortgage Fraud
Obviously, more of this should be coming from Washington rather than Albany, but I’ll take it for now.
Author Page for Scott Lemieux
The Ongoing Influence of Sarah Palin’s Constitutional Theories
Dan Foster, in the midst of taking an incoherent ride on the waambulance, is proud of a co-worker’s piece of anti-wisdom:
In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?” But in fact, that anyone thinks there is a question here is a sign we’ve already lost.
The fact that nobody at the National Review seems to understand that Komen’s right to “dispose of its money as it sees fit” (which absolutely nobody denies) does not entail a right to be exempt from criticism — let alone a right to a permanent level of donations — is a sign that the National Review employs a lot of really dumb people.
…Simon Maloy has more.
…also unclear on this rather basic concept is the always hacktacular Jennifer Rubin. [via Jill.]
Buh-Bye
I will be upset about this…if the Democrats fall one seat short of taking the House. Otherwise, good riddance.
Was Shuler worse as a legislator or quarterback? Tough call…
“Our Advancing the Anti-Choice Goals Our Leaders Support Was Not Political”
Shorter Nancy Brinker: “We will not bow down. We will continue to defend our stupid, anti-gender equity decisions with evasive, almost comically disingenuous gibberish.”
By the way, since this new standard that any organization under a nuisance investigation by political opponents cannot receive funding was totally not tailored solely to apply to Planned Parenthood, I’ll assume that Komen will immediately end their funding of Penn State, right? Or do actual serious investigations not count?
You’re Right — It *Was* a “Monstrous Decision”
For an object lesson about why it infuriates me when the Dana Milbanks of the world assume that the forced pregnancy lobby has some sort of monopoly on assessing morality, see here. Forcing your mentally disabled daughter to bear her rapist’s child without her input (let alone consent,) based on utter nonsense about Plan B being an abortifacient. And then bragging about it! This isn’t some great act of moral conscience; it’s an act of barbarism.
Union-Busting Hits the Midwest
Yesterday, with Gov. Mitch Daniels’ signature, Indiana became the 23d state, and the very first (other than Indiana itself during a brief period ending in 1965) in the industrial northeast and midwest, to enact “right-to-work” legislation—or as folk in the labor movement call it, a “right to work for less” law.
[...]
But as someone who grew up in the right-to-work Deep South, I can assure Indianans that from a psychological point of view they are about to enter a brave new world where an ever-neurotic desire to keep corporations happy always seems to trump any consideration of fair play or workers’ rights. Welcome to the Old South, Hoosiers! Misery loves company.
An Apercu, With Further Evidence
Roy, on “Mitt Romey’s tendency to reveal himself as a clueless rich prick”: “But as I have discussed here many times, part of the conservative project, especially since the multiple Republican scandals of 2006, has been to turn conventional ideas of decent human behavior on their head.”
Shorter Verbatim Glenn Reynolds: “Frankly, I think he’s got a point. People whose livelihood comes from the government — whether the very poor, or the government employees — are doing fine.”
[Cartoon, of course, by the great Ruben Bolling.]
First As Farce, Then As More Farce
I’ll bet this will help almost as much as the Cain endorsement and the Palin quasi-endorsement! I don’t think anyone thinks Newt is a viable candidate anymore, at least apart from himself and the LGM comment sections, but can’t his campaign be allowed to die with some dignity? Actually, come to think if it, that wouldn’t be Newt. Hopefully he’ll be able to secure Alan Keyes before Super Tuesday.
Yet More Komen
I think it’s safe to say that the answer to the key question here is “no”:
Can you trust a breast cancer organization whose staff and board lie about medical science, including breast cancer?
Today, amidst the outcry surrounding the decision by the Susan G. Komen Foundation to demand that its state affiliates terminate a successful five-year relationship working with Planned Parenthood clinics to increase access to breast cancer screening for low-income and uninsured women, it dawned on me that there is another pressing question here not being asked.
Why has the world’s largest breast cancer advocacy organization hired senior staff people and elected to its board individuals who misrepresent, or are allied with those who misrepresent, medical and public health evidence, including about causes of breast cancer?
Directing your dollars away from Komen makes it much more likely they’ll go to actual cancer treatment, much less likely that your money will go to filing silly lawsuits against other charitable organizations:
Yet this is an organization that has repeatedly come under fire for its extravagant promotion of itself as an organization dedicated to a “cure,” when only a small portion of its expenses go to, you know, curing cancer. Komen itself cops to portioning just 24 percent of its funds to research – and 20 percent to fundraising and administration. For an organization with reported revenues of nearly $350 million, that’s still a lot of money for research. It’s an awful lot for itself, too.
Yet Komen remains pretty damn territorial around that whole “cure” thing. In a 2010 story for the Huffington Post, writer Laura Bassett pointed out that, according to Komen’s own financial records, it spends almost “a million dollars a year in donor funds” aggressively going after other organizations that dare to use the phrase “for the cure” – including small charities like Kites for a Cure, Par for the Cure, Surfing for a Cure, Cupcakes for a Cure, and even a dog-sledding event called Mush for the Cure. Let me just give you that number again. A million bucks a year. Robert Smith, better watch your back.
In addition, see these excellent pieces about why the right hates Planned Parenthood and Komen’s wingnut founder.
And Now, the Punchline
If Prick Erry weren’t the kind of person who is happy to send innocent people to be executed and then do what he can to stop inquires that might stop more innocent people from being executed, I could almost feel sorry for the guy:
On primary day, Rick Perry’s extinct presidential campaign released its final donation numbers: $20.1 million. Hours later, he scored 6,742 votes in Florida. How pathetic was this? Four years earlier, in the very same position — still on the ballot, out of the race — Fred Thompson won 22,668 Florida votes. So far, adding up all the caucus votes and primary ballots, the Perry campaign (not counting Super PACs) has spent $851.88 per vote.
There are bad presidential campaigns. There are really, really bad presidential campaigns. And then there are presidential campaigns that are substantially worse than Fred Thompson’s. (Although maybe this was just Thompson’s allegedly remarkable way with women.)
Speaking of failed Republican campaigns, one way a candidate who should logically be incapable of winning a Republican primary can become the inevitable winner by February 1st is if his closest competition has no particular interest in such mundane matters as “running a professional campaign.”
More on the Weak Case for a Special Exemption on Contraceptive Coverage
I’m sure you’ll be surprised to know that I don’t find E.J. Dionne’s criticisms of the Obama administration’s contraception coverage persuasive. For the reasons stated there it’s not entirely clear what Dionne wants, but what he’s advocating is either pointless or isn’t a “compromise” but just represents giving in to opponents of gender equity. My second point applies to Jon Chait as well; if you’re going to try to make a case that religious freedom should trump core concerns about gender equity, reproductive freedom, and impartial governance, the fact that as a first approximation no lay Catholics believe in the church’s teachings seems relevant (as does the fact that the policy does not apply to religious institutions qua religious institutions, but only in their secular functions as employers.) The burdens of what Dionne, Douthat and Chait are asking to impose are real, while the impact on religious freedom as the religion is actually practiced of the Obama administration’s superior alternative is miniscule.
More Komen
This explanation has been met with reasonable skepticism for a number of reasons. For one, the organization has faced increasing pressure from antiabortion activists to cut all ties to Planned Parenthood. For two, Karen Handel, the Foundation’s senior vice president for public policy, is antiabortion. During her failed 2010 gubernatorial campaign, she publicly stated, “I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.” That’s not to mention, as sociologist Gayle Sulik, author of “Pink Ribbon Blues,” told me, “If Komen held its corporate partners to that standard, we’d see a lot fewer pink-ribboned products on the market.”
[....]
Regardless of whether the Komen Foundation pulled grants “because they caved to anti-choice pressure or because of the political leanings of their VP,” says activist Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com, “the result is the same — women’s health and lives are going to suffer as a result.” That’s especially true for low-income women who are most dependent on Planned Parenthood’s services.
No matter how much anti-choicers wish otherwise, it’s not feasible to create an approach to women’s health that separates good girl concerns from bad girl concerns. For instance, many women land in gynocologist’s offices seeking contraceptive services and cervical-cancer screenings, and doctors use that opportunity to teach the art of breast self-exam. As noted in my previous post on the Santorums’ pregnancy troubles, even the world of the hated abortion provider and the much-vaunted obstetrician can’t be so easily separated, as the latter is often called upon to have knowledge of pregnancy termination in case of a medical emergency.
In the end, the grant money is less important than the symbolism of Komen buying into the conservative myth of good-girl health care vs. bad-girl health care. In reality, women’s health care can only work if it’s comprehensive health care. Komen has already been under serious scrutiny by those who argue that the organization cares more about shoring up their image than making real progress in the fight for women’s health, and with this move today, they proved their critics right.
As noted in comments, http://www.charitynavigator.org/ can help you find alternatives if you’d prefer that your charitable contributions not go to an organization that believes in gender subordination, and I also agree that donations to your local clinics are a good idea. (As, of course, in a donation to your local Planned Parenthood; in the name of the Komen Foundation even better.) More good suggestions here.
