February 03, 2012

Romney on Marriage, and Other Examples of Extremism and Intolerance

By John Ballard

This is old news because it happened in December, but I'm posting it in case anybody forgot. I'm amazed the video is only listed as having been viewed a few thousand times. It illustrates the larger point about religious extremism. 

One might think that being Mormon would sensitize someone to the quagmire of ugliness that bubbles up with religious extremism. But one would be wrong.

I just received the following link in an email from an old high schlool classmate who is a retired teacher. This is freaking unbelievable.

Giving Alabama teachers a big pay raise could go against the Bible, state Sen. Shadrack

McGill (R-Woodville) said recently at a prayer breakfast in north Alabama, according to the Times-Journal of Dekalb County.

But McGill supports the 62 percent pay increase the legislature gave itself in 2007 because means lawmakers are now less susceptible to taking bribes, the paper reported.

Regarding teacher pay, McGill said: "It's a Biblical principle. If you double a teacher's pay scale, you'll attract people who aren't called to teach. To go in and raise someone's child for eight hours a day, or many people's children for eight hours a day, requires a calling. It better be a calling in your life. I know I wouldn't want to do it, OK?"

Slowly but surely, like mildew in a crawl space, a lunatic fringe is infesting our politics.

Another example is a sub-text of the current Komen vs. Planned Parenthood flap,  the nutty idea that abortions lead to breast cancer, a notion at best scientifically marginal but advanced by religious extremists that have polarized that issue as well.

Pick just about any topic -- capital punishment, assisted suicide, school prayer, abortion, gun control, global warming -- and we are being polarized into political and social extremes, fueled in no small way by extreme and unbending religious views.

I saw a Tweet yesterday that if Jesus were alive today someone from the 1% would be telling Him to get a job. 

Komen Damage Control

Commentary By Ron Beasley

Komen for the Cure has apparently reversed their decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

It may be too little too late as the PP brouhaha has resulted in people looking at other aspects of the organization.  The documentary Pink Ribbons, Inc.  opening today won't help.

Update

Komen caved. Or did it?  Greg Sargent says not really.

The question now is what its announcement actually means.

I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

Update II

Good take down of Komen here. Komen no longer owns pink

In fact, the way the foundation goes about fighting breast cancer has made pink a dirty color. There’s even a documentary, “Pink Ribbons Inc.,” that takes the giant nonprofit and its corporate style to task.

Komen’s apparently politically driven decision to stop providing grants for breast cancer prevention services to Planned Parenthood may well spell the end of the “pink-washing.”

That’s what Breast Cancer Action has been calling it for years in its “Think Before You Pink” campaign. That group advocates for research into the root causes of breast cancer, not just the treatment-oriented research and screening message advocated by Komen.

Update III

This from my partner John:

Good News Everybody (NFP edition)

By Dave Anderson:

An actual piece of very good news on the job front via the BLS:

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in January, and the
unemployment rate decreased to 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Job growth was widespread in the private
sector, with large employment gains in professional and business
services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. Government
employment changed little over the month....

The unemployment rate declined by 0.2 percentage point in January to
8.3 percent; the rate has fallen by 0.8 point since August.

All backward looking data has also been revised upwards.  243,000 new jobs in a month is a pace that is sufficient to actually tighten up the labor market and thus improve wages/income.

February 02, 2012

Planned Parenthood No - Handguns Yes

Commentary By Ron Beasley

Susan-g-komen-gun

Pink handguns are OK but planned parenthood is not? This is "pro life" according to the Susan B. Komen Foundation:

The Susan G. Komen Foundation, which collects and distributes money for Breast Cancer research and prevention is in the news for withdrawing its (relatively small) grant from Planned Parenthood. 

So the Komen Foundation doesn't want to be associated with the nation's largest abortion-provider. But they don't mind partnering up with a handgun maker

This gun is a beauty. 

And a portion of the sale of each P-22 Hope Edition will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Is there any doubt that the Susan B. Komen is a right wing scam?

 

Komen Noose

Commentary By Ron Beasley

This graphic from @AzureGhost says it all:

Komen-Noose
via Balloon Juice.

Hasten the Day

By Steve Hynd

Romney charges that the Obama administration's announcement of a 2013 end to combat missions in Afghanistan and 2014 pull-out date "makes absolutely no sense."

One of the few moderate, sane Republicans left, James Joyner, responds:

Critics who worry that this announcement of a withdrawal severely undercuts our negotiating position with the Taliban are surely correct. They can easily bide their time now that they have a date certain.

So how can a decision that undermines our allies and our own negotiating power nonetheless be the right one? Because the alternative is to continue getting people killed -- not to mention inadvertently killing innocents -- in a fight we can't win.

...As with many other Obama foreign policy decisions, one might have wished for a better rollout. Consultation with our NATO allies and partners on the matter would have been good form. And, after a more than a decade of fighting, a presidential speech rather than a casual announcement by the defense secretary would have been more fitting.

Ultimately, though, hastening the day Americans stop dying for a lost cause is the right call.

The Taliban always could "bide their time" in Afghanistan. They live there. Announce the timetable or not, it's meaningless.

I'm highly skeptical that this announced transition will actually mean the end to Americans fighting and dying in Afghanistan, and even more so that 2014 will see the end to a US military presence there, but I cannot help but concur with James' sentiments about "dying for a lost cause".

Alas, I'm fairly sure that Simon Jenkins is right when he writes that nothing has been learned from Afghanistan.

More alarming about the Afghan war has been its psychology. It has generated some two dozen books on my shelf, and every one of them warns, cautions, criticises, condemns. The Pashtun Taliban should not be underestimated. Defeating them by main force flew in the face of all experience. Pakistani intelligence would offer them sanctuary and support. Nato should not drive al-Qaida, a tiny Arabist cell in 2001, into alliance with the Taliban. The idea that force of western arms could turn a corrupt Muslim statelet into a sanitised, pro-western democracy was arrogant and unreal.

Every warning was disregarded in a classic of "cognitive dissonance".

...Unlike most European countries, sucked into the Afghan vortex by Nato blackmail, Britain and the US were willing warriors, with belligerence in their cultural genes. Discussing "what must be done" to order the rest of the world is second nature to their political class...Which is why this is not the endgame. Britain is even now rattling sabres and dicing with disaster alongside the US against Iran. Such a war would be as catastrophic as could be imagined, and against a country that poses no conceivable threat to western security. The sole reason for going to war against Iran is to go to war against Iran. That is how we went to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Clearly, nothing has been learned.

If not Iran, then Syria. If not Syria, then somewhere else. It certainly seems correct to say that the US and Britain share some subtextual notion of "manifest destiny" that means they can keep on blithely assuming they have the right and wherewithall to "order the rest of the world" at gunpoint. To truly "hasten the day Americans stop dying for a lost cause" we're going to have to deal with that notion. I confess, I've no blessed clue how.

Climate Denialism: A Future Crime

By Steve Hynd

TP Green notes that Mitt Romney is climbing aboard the denialist crazy train in his search for GOP primary votes, attacking Gingrich in a public email for appearing in a 2008 ad for Al Gore's climate campaign.

Romney’s campaign spokesman Ryan Williams bashed Gingrich as being part of the “Soros agenda” for the advertisement:

"It is interesting to see the latest attack from Speaker Gingrich and his disintegrating campaign. Unlike Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney never sat next to Nancy Pelosi in an ad funded by George Soros on behalf of Al Gore’s global warming initiative. As recently as 2008, the Soros agenda had no better friend than Newt Gingrich. Nice try, Mr. Speaker."

For most of the world, anthropogenic climate change is settled science. We get that putting more energy into the system (a.k.a global warming) means not just an overall temperature rise but also vastly more energetic and unpredicatble weather systems leading to things like unusual cold spells and snowfalls in Winter, or to stronger tonadoes and heavier flooding in areas where such already occur. The evidence is overwhelming and the notion that climate change is some Soros-created conspiracy is just crazy. Anyone who believes otherwise has a reality-map which is so divergent from what is actually happening as to fulfil the primary requirement for a psychosis: a thought disorder in which reality testing is grossly impaired.

But the Republican Party has been bought and paid for by the Energy lobby; the Kochs and Halliburton, Exxon and the rest. Scientific shills for hire take to the pages of rightwing newspapers to push the Energy lobby's agenda and that filters down to the Republican rank-and-file as a gospel teaching to which purity tests apply. Both Romney and Gingrich, along with others in their party like McCain in 2008, have had to shift their public stances on climate change to a full-on denialism under the sway of this psychosis.

I'd understand if the GOP's position was that anthropogenic climate change was real, was happening, but that it was economically unviable to try to halt its progression. I'd disagree but at least it'd be a logically consistent position and the GOP could join the rest of us in talking about how we handle the effects of that change. Instead, their denialist intransigence is shaping up to become the greatest crime against humanity the Republicans have ever backed - and I include Iraq, their many bigotries and their "I'm alright, Jack" economic support for the 1% against the 99% in that statement. If they won't admit there's a cause, they cannot begin to formulate policies to deal with the problems.

Analyst Jack Whipple puts it succinctly:

"Taken together, the decline and eventual near cessation of fossil fuel production and that of many other minerals, disruption in global weather patterns, and the growing food and water scarcity will constitute the third great transition. Unlike the previous transitions in which life arguably got better for some, if not most, of the world's peoples, any upside to this transition seems to pale in the face of what is to come."

While a 2007 report by the centrist think-tank CNAS was rather more explicit:

In the case of severe climate change, corresponding to an average increase in global temperature of 2.6°C by 2040, massive nonlinear events in the global environment give rise to massive nonlinear societal events. In this scenario...nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress, including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and nuclear war is possible. The social consequences range from increased religious fervor to outright chaos. In this scenario, climate change provokes a permanent shift in the relationship of humankind to nature.

The tipping point for that 2.6°C radical change has already been reached.

As TP Green's Brad Johnson noted last year:

The Republican Party is doing its utmost to cripple our nation’s ability to prepare for and respond to climate disasters. At Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s behest, House GOP slashed clean energy investments to pay for emergency disaster relief following the Joplin and Tuscaloosa tornadoes. They cut the DHS disaster preparedness budget, including firefighter funding, in half (after Democrats raised an outcry, some firefighter grants were restored). They have blocked funding for the NOAA Climate Service, and slashed money for critical weather satellites. In states throughout the nation, conservatives are gutting clean-energy programs and attacking climate science, while local emergency services budgets are stripped to the bone.

With the security of our homeland under the clear and present threat of global warming, conservatives are choosing to cripple our defenses, simply to serve the obscene profits of climate polluters.

Climate change is the big anvil-to-be around the GOP's neck. In decades to come, their denialism for so many years will wreck their claims to be the strong party on national security, as it becomes clearer that their intransigence (and being in hock to the energy lobby) for nearly a decade in power under Bush left the US lagging behind others in facing up to the security challenges climate change entails. Mitt and the other GOP frontrunners want to repeat that crime of ommission for another term or two. Meanwhile, many people will die and others will live miserable lives. Their denialism constitutes a crime against humanity "in waiting".

HCR -- PHYSICIAN PAYMENT SUNSHINE ACT

By John Ballard

Another feature of PPACA is kicking in. 

Imagine yourself in front of your computer, looking up information about a drug prescribed by your doctor. Your Internet search tells you that there is a cheaper, maybe even a generic version available, but you have just paid top dollar for the brand name drug. You also learn that another treatment may be safer than the prescription you just filled. Now imagine you discover that your doctor gets paid by the manufacturer to promote the drug to other doctors.

There are various words for this sort of financial transaction, when, say, a radio disk jockey is paid by a recording studio to play a song or a broker is paid to tout a stock — both of which, by the way, are illegal. In medicine it’s called a financial conflict of interest, although “pharmapayola” is in some ways more accurate. It’s perfectly legal, and it’s rampant. In a survey published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2010, 28% of physicians reported that they received some kind of payment from a drug company to serve on a speaker’s board, as a consultant, or on an advisory board. Other bennies handed out by companies included free drug samples, tickets to sporting events, meals at five-star restaurants and all-expenses paid trips to medical meetings in nice locales.

Yes, I know. You are shocked that such a thing has been happening. 

Here's a link where you can check up on a doctor. 

No more pinkwashing

By BJ Bjornson

The fun never stops with this one. Yesterday, the internet erupted over the news that the Susan G Komen for the Cure foundation was cutting funding to Planned Parenthood in a blatant cave-in to right-wing ideologues. Today brings news that the new rules Komen brought in to cut off the Planned Parenthood funding were done specifically to give them an excuse to cut that funding.

Komen, the marketing juggernaut that brought the world the ubiquitous pink ribbon campaign, says it cut-off Planned Parenthood because of a newly adopted foundation rule prohibiting it from funding any group that is under formal investigation by a government body. (Planned Parenthood is being investigated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, an anti-abortion Florida Republican, who says he is trying to learn if the group spent public money to provide abortions.)

But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut-off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new "no-investigations" rule applies to only one so far.) The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization's new senior vice-president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion and who has said that since she is "pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." (The Komen grants to Planned Parenthood did not pay for abortion or contraception services, only cancer detection, according to all parties involved.)


The answer to this is much the same as it was yesterday, move your cancer donations elsewhere and, per PZ Myers, let Komen suck up the cash of Puritans to where it can at least still be put to some good use.

So don’t give to them anymore. Redirect your charitable giving to organizations that don’t have a Puritanical streak, and are a bit less Republican in outlook. There is no shortage; I recommend the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Breast Cancer Charities of America, CancerCare, and the Cancer Research Institute. So far, they all seem to be dedicated to fighting cancer and helping people, and a lot less concerned about policing people’s morality to conform to that of the Religious Right.

But I don’t want Susan G. Komen to go away. I think it is an excellent charity for right-wingers and Christian fundamentalists to donate to — their money will go to a cause we can all support, and it’s better than filling the coffers of the Mormon or Catholic churches.


And yes, I’m leaving in the links to the other charities as a lazy way to point you all to where you can divert your charitable giving, if you don’t want to just send it directly to Planned Parenthood itself.

And if you need further incentive to cut off the pink ribbon folks, it may delight you to know that the people who helped push Komen away from saving poor women’s lives with breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics are now pushing them to stop supporting stem cell research. Though I’m not sure if this is a matter of giving into bullies who then just ask for more, since by all accounts, it was more a matter of electing the bullies to run the organization.

This little documentary probably won’t help matters for Komen much either.

February 01, 2012

Argument of the fundamentalist

By BJ Bjornson

Probably a little late as his always slim chance for the Republican nomination slips ever further away, but this clip of Gingrich rather perfectly sums up what the religious right means when they talk about “religious freedom”. It isn’t actually freedom of (and from) all religions, its a free pass for their religion and their religion alone. No one else need apply.


And just what is “our religion” do you think? As the Founding Fathers were aware, if the government can make Christianity the state religion, it can just as easily make one specific sect of Christianity the state religion, and there is more than a little disagreement on a lot of the particulars between Christian sects, which is why they thought it best to keep religion and government separate.

Of course, so long as the rubes can be convinced that it will be their specific beliefs that will rule, they’ll keep lapping this stuff up. They should be happy if they never find out how wrong they probably are.


------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

Use an online petition to get help in promoting your cause

------------------------------------------




-----------------------------------------

Students - unlimited, free, online storage for your class notes! Share with Study Buddies, and get instant updates just like Facebook, when buddies add new notes. Claim your free membership to StudyUp today!

------------------------------------------

Are you concerned with the current state of the U.S. economy? Get a free investment education and take control of your financial future at TeenAnalyst today.

-----------------------------------------

One of the most relaxing places to read is in barrel saunas. The soothing scent of the wood in these cedar saunas is something everyone has to experience at least once in their lifetime!

-----------------------------------------

Click here to visit
Powell's Books!

----------------------------------------

Follow Us On Twitter

Steve

Dave

Ron

John


-----------------------------------------

Google

Powered by TypePad

The RX Factor
Fiction By J. Thomas Shaw
Read Ron's Review

Guest of Honor: Booker T. Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, and the White House Dinner That Shocked a Nation
By Deborah Davis
Read Ron's Review

We Heard the Heavens Then: A Memoir of Iran
By Aria Minu-sepehr
Read Ron's Review

The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America--And Spawned a Global Crisis
By Michael W. Hudson
Read Ron's Review

The Collapse of Complex Societies
By Joseph Tainter
Read Ron's Review

Crossing Zero: The Afpak War at the Turning Point of American Empire
By Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald
Reading Now

Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values And Vision
By George Lakoff
Read Steve's Review

Invisible History:Afghanistan's Untold Story
By Paul Fitzgerald & Elizabeth Gould
Read Ron's Review

The Day We Found The Universe
By Marcia Bartusiak
Read Ron's Review

Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate
By Stephen H Schneider
Read BJ's Review

Ayn Rand And The World She Made
By Anne C. Heller
Read Ron's Review

The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
By Richard Dawkins
Read BJ's Review

Thomas W. Benton-Artist/Activist
By Daniel Joseph Watkins
Read Ron's Review