Gary Carter Dies at 57

NY TIMES: Gary Carter, the slugging catcher known as Kid for the sheer joy he took in playing baseball, who entered the Hall of Fame as a Montreal Expo but who most famously helped propel the Mets to their dramatic 1986 World Series championship, died Thursday. He was 57.

The cause was brain cancer, which had been diagnosed last May. Carter had been treated with chemotherapy and radiation, but his daughter Kimmy Bloemers said in mid-January that new tumors had been discovered.

1986 was a magical year for the Mets and for me as a Mets fan. I remember watching Game 6 holding my breath with two outs in the ninth and down two runs, and it was Gary Carter who singled into the outfield to start that improbable comeback.

Such a sad way to go out.

I found the women

POSTED BY JHW22

Earlier, I posted a Planned Parenthood screen grab of the Darrell Issa hearing on "freedom of religion" where only men representing religious leadership were testifying. Many took to the Twittah machine to express outrage that only men were invited to speak about contraception. A friend of mine called Darrell Issa's office to express that frustration, only to be told the hearings were not about "birth control" but were about "religious freedom." I called his office and said that if the hearing is about religious freedom, then there should be women testifying about THEIR religious freedom. I suggested Representative Issa release a public statement explaining why he didn't think women had a say in the first amendment. I suggested that a table full of men talking about religious liberties implies he doesn't think women have any. The staffer told me that these were leaders and that their hierarchy is only men. I asked if there weren't ANY religious institutions that had women in leadership roles and she said, "I guess not." I told her that was incorrect and that there is even a prominent nun who actually sides with the White House plan for contraception coverage. I asked why she wasn't there today. The staffer even thought only Catholics were on the panel, despite there being a Jewish Rabbi.

So, we all freaked for good reason. Only one gender and only one view was represented in a hearing about the FIRST AMENDMENT -- you know, that amendment that allows for multiple views. Of all discussions, this should have had a variety of testimonies. There should have been at least one person on that panel testifying on behalf of the religious freedom of women to choose what to put in their body and to be allowed the same access to rights given to other men and women, despite their boss having a "conscience" problem.

But the second half of the testimony did include two women -- both representing religious university administrations. So, they had women testifying on a "religious freedom" panel and yet, they don't represent members of any religious belief -- they represent universities. Universities that are not legally allowed to deny employment based on a person's faith or "conscience." They are not allowed to force a religious mission, philosophy or doctrine on any employee. Therefore, what these women have to do with another woman's religious freedom to choose to take birth control is beyond me.

What's most troubling is that one of the women who testified is a medical doctor. And she has a problem with birth control.

Folks, we have a serious problem here. Women's rights are being taken away -- prods are being rammed up women's vaginas to forcibly, against her will, influence her not to abort something that looks like a dot on a screen and doesn't have a heart beat. Women are being denied equal access to universal preventative care because of who their boss is. Voter ID laws are limiting how many women can vote. Previously apolitical charities are hiring ideologues to limit Planned Parenthood's impact on women's health. And the Boehner House has spent more time on abortion and Planned Parenthood than creating jobs.

So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to keep getting mad? Are we going to keep fighting this crap? Or are we going to get out the vote and kick these assholes out of office?

Suggestions appreciated in the comments on ways to stand up and create shock and awe!

"Where's Waldo?" or "Where are Women?"

POSTED BY JHW22

Today a hearing is taking place on Capitol Hill regarding contraception coverage in health insurance plans. Planned Parenthood posted this picture of the hearing. Notice the absence of relevant witnesses?

WWPRD? - What Would President Romney Do?

Had it been up to Mitt Romney, we would no longer have an American auto industry. Here's what he wrote in his New York Times op-ed back in November of 2008, two months before President Obama took office:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed...

...A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs...

...In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Seal their fate with a "bailout check." "...it's demise will be virtually guaranteed." The Bain way, apparently. Maybe the only way Romney knows. Take over a company, bankrupt it and reap the profits.

So here we are, a little over three years later, and GM is back on top as the world's top auto manufacturer. So of course, you'd expect Mitt would think that perhaps even if the government didn't go about it the right way in his opinion, at least a million plus jobs were saved and Detroit is alive again. ...Nope. He doubled down.

The indisputable good news is that Chrysler and General Motors are still in business. The equally indisputable bad news is that all the defects in President Obama's management of the American economy are evident in what he did.

Instead of doing the right thing and standing up to union bosses, Obama rewarded them.

Blame the workers. Nice going, Mitt. Never mind that the UAW took significant cuts, in pay, benefits and pension to keep their jobs and keep the auto industry alive in this country.

Now, the US Treasury still owns about one-third of GM's stock and is holding off on selling it until it can at the very least, minimize losses. But what would Mitt Romney do?

The Obama administration needs to act now to divest itself of its ownership position in GM.

The shares need to be sold in a responsible fashion and the proceeds turned over to the nation's taxpayers.

Yes, if Mitt Romney were President, he would sell the shares of GM... at a massive loss.

Taxpayers have recovered roughly half of the government’s $49.5 billion investment in GM through stock sales and loan repayments.

To break even on the GM bailout, the Treasury Department would have to sell its remaining one-third stake in the company for roughly $53 a share. GM stock is trading at about half that amount, so the government would lose about $14 billion on the deal if those shares were sold today.

Something tells me that unless Ronmey is dealing in vulture capitalism, he really has no idea what he's doing.

Stewart Weighs In on Contraception Issue

Jon Stewart came back from vacation with guns blazing regarding the whole contraception debacle, and in regards to the previous post by JHW22, I'd thought I'd add it here. Brilliant.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Don't Mess With Me, It's That Time of the Month!

POSTED BY JHW22

Let me start by saying I love the men in my life. I respect them and they respect me. So when I make the following statement, please know I am only making it about CERTAIN men. Ready? Men need to SHUT THE FUCK UP about birth control! Now, when I see the majority of male pundits and commentators and journalists (or whatever the hell we're supposed to refer to them as these days) going ON AND ON about freedom of religion in regards to contraception, I want to yell loudly enough so that each one hears me: "WHAT ABOUT MY FREEDOM OF RELIGION!?!?!"

I appreciate the women, especially the Catholic women, all over the teevee and radio and blogs and articles standing up for a woman's right to choose what to put in her body to prevent the arrival of something unwanted in her body. I love that the women's groups, on the heels of the Koman disaster, are Fired Up! Ready to Go! But even these wonderful women, speaking on my behalf and many of yours, are missing the KEY POINT in the debate. This isn't just about health care or access to preventative care or a woman's right to equality in benefits no matter where she works. This absolutely IS a debate about religious freedom: WOMEN'S.

I would appreciate it if more of us started nailing this very crucial point: the Bishops are NOT the only ones in the debate with religious freedom to protect. Let's keep the focus on the sacred first amendment (one I believe in to my core). As an atheist and a strong supporter of the separation of church and state, I think it's a vile offense of a woman's religious freedom to have her employer impose HIS religious beliefs on HER health care. I don't care if the female employee is a Catholic and that 98% of Catholic women use contraception. I don't care what the numbers are. I wouldn't care if only 2% of Catholic women used it. What I care about is that NO WOMAN be denied access to basic health care because some MAN doesn't like her ability to regulate her own menstrual cycle based on HIS, not HER, religious beliefs.

So, data aside, health reasoning aside, this debate should be about religious freedom and we should be reminding the world, that we, as American women, are entitled to this very freedom and stop letting the debate sound as if only men have the right to practice their faith. These men to keep their religion in their pants, not mine!

GOP Walking the Contraception Plank

Is this how it's going to end for the Republican Party?

TPM: Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.

Currently, 28 states mandate that employers' health insurance cover contraception for its employees, eight of which require it regardless of whether they are religiously affiliated or not. Many Catholic universities and hospitals already provide the coverage. The Obama administration's religious exemption is far broader than current law and actually a loosening of restrictions. But for some reason, GOP leaders think they have a dog in this fight and are betting that this will be wedge issue to sway Catholic votes away from the President in the upcoming 2012 election. This despite the fact that 58% of Catholics believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, and that 62% of women overall, a huge voting block to be sure, agree as well.

So not only are they tying one end of the Blunt Amendment rope around the Catholic opposition rock, but they're tying the other end around their necks with a flawed "religious freedom" argument and attempting to roll back existing law for employers whose businesses have nothing to do with religion, and tossing it off the wingnut bridge.

“The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion, it’s right there in the First Amendment. You can’t miss it — right there in the very first amendment to our Constitution,” [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell said. “What the overall view on the issue of contraception is has nothing to do with an issue about religious freedom.”

McConnell went on to embellish the argument, claiming Obama is being “rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else’s religion is.” He said that “this issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down.”

How can a career politician of McConnell's stature get the First Amendment so wrong? It's because he is ginning up another empty attack on President Obama. He just can't help himself. Let's review:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No law "respecting the establishment of religion..." - meaning that the government will not make any one religion the official religion of the country. "...or prohibiting free exercise thereof." - meaning that you are free to practice any religion you choose without fear of reproach from the government.

So, no, Senator McConnell, it's not "right there" in the First Amendment. Just because you are free to practice religion as you choose and follow its supposed moral values, does not mean you can arbitrarily ignore the laws of the land thereby causing an infringement on another person's rights. It's a far, far stretch to say that requiring an employer to cover contraception in its health care benefits for their employees, even if that employer is the Catholic Church now playing a role in the secular world, is a violation of conscience. It is up to the individual in question to face their moral conscience when it comes to the usage of contraception made available at no cost via their health insurance plans. Catholics who work outside the realm of the Church as their employer have that health care right. They also have the right not to use it - because of their religious beliefs.

In fact, I believe that in this particular case, it is the Catholic Church that is in violation of the very thing it protests. If the employee in question is not of the Catholic faith, why should he or she be discriminated against and not have the same health care benefits they would have if they didn't work for a religious organization? Is that not an infringement of their rights? If the government favored the religious institution's view, would that not be a violation of the First Amendment, namely "respecting the establishment" of their religion in lieu of federal law? If this were the case, could a Catholic secretary working for an Orthodox Jewish lawyer bring a ham and cheese sandwich to the office for her lunch in clear violation of her employer's Jewish beliefs?

I happen to be indifferent on the exemption to churches that President Obama offered. But when the church clearly steps in to the province of secular business, whether it be a hospital or a school in which people of all faiths are accepted, then they should and must follow the rules and regulations of the secular world. You can't claim religious exemption when it suits you. In this contraception coverage "nontroversy," the majority of Catholics are right, it's the Catholic Church and the "anything anti-Obama" GOP that are wrong.

ADDING... Rachel Maddow had a great piece on this issue last Thursday night. Along with exposing the Republican candidates fighting it out for the Presidential nomination, she also took a swipe and the 60-something, white male Beltway pundits who seem to think that it's the President who is looking bad on this issue even though he's with the majority of Americans. I think she may have been referring to Chris Matthews.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama's Latest "Cave"

And no, it wasn't a cave.

Whitney Houston Dies at 48

ABC News: Whitney Houston, who ruled as pop music's queen until her majestic voice and regal image were ravaged by drug use, erratic behavior and a tumultuous marriage to singer Bobby Brown, has died. She was 48.

Houston's publicist, Kristen Foster, said Saturday that the singer had died, but the cause and the location of her death were unknown.

It's a sad thing what addiction can do. Cause of death is not determined yet, but years of drug and alcohol abuse can't be ignored. Tragic.

Misunderstanding and Underestimating President Obama

POSTED BY DESERT CRONE NM

Many on the left have set their hair on fire over President Obama's solution to the conflict between religious institutions, primarily the Catholic church, providing health care coverage which includes birth control to women and the teachings of the church. One would have to be in the wildest parts of Siberia to have missed this controversy, so I will not recount the drama that has unfolded.

However, once again the ubiquitous word "cave" has appeared in association with this decision. There was a time when this would infuriate me, but now I laugh at the predictability of the critical left. Of course, if you dare disagree with them, then they launch into name calling that would make any junior high student proud. I think one reason for their childish, often surly, reaction is their unstated, unreasonable expectations of President Obama. It's as if some on the left have never listened to his speeches, press conferences, or town halls because if they had, surely they would have some understanding of the man.

For example, Barack Obama is a man who truly understands the art of politics better than any of his critics on the right or left and certainly any of the ideologues. Plenty of evidence exists to support this as he brings home one victory after another for the American people in spite of seemingly insurmountable odds. Certainly many do understand him, calling him the chess master while his opponents are merely sitting in the park playing checkers. But time after time those of us who have defended the President are called idiots, morons, Obamabots, etc. in spite of the fact our defense of President Obama has been well-founded and well-placed. But the critical left still doesn't get him.

As an example of the obtuseness of President Obama's critics on the left, let me take you back to the time when the second budget agreement was finalized. Remember Boehner bragging about how he got what he wanted? Remember Cenk Uygur and others of his ilk screaming that the President got rolled? A couple of days later, Boehner was whining that the Republicans had been rolled, but "’we won't be rolled again.’" Yet they were . . . again and again.

The very same scenario played out during the debt ceiling negotiations and agreement. As we watched this unfold, what became clear to most of us but not to the angry left and the Republicans was that the President had boxed the opposition into a corner with no escape. In their eagerness to out-fox the President and race to the microphones, the Republicans again overlooked the long-term results. Thus, after the Super Committee failed and the Department of Defense cuts were activated, the Republicans were not crowing but eating crow . . . again. And again the the critics on the left either didn’t notice or were too prideful to admit they had misjudged Barack Obama.

And now again in the debate over women's health, the Republicans have been rolled and although we have ample evidence that the President knows more about negotiating and political maneuvering than anyone in D.C., the angry left is still as dense as ever. And for the umpteenth time they and the Republicans look like fools. As a wise man once said, “‘there’s a saying that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.’" Okay, forget the wise part.

When the uproar broke this week over mandating religious institutions offer women's preventative care coverage, we saw a replay of every other drama over important issues about which we liberals care deeply. The debate over this issue was couched as either a violation of religious freedom or women's right to unfettered access to birth control. Most of the proponents of the religious freedom argument were white Catholic male pundits, such as Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell, who frankly couldn't see past their white privilege to see the true issue here. But I digress.

The Republicans came out with their usual hysterical rhetoric, providing further evidence to the American people just how extreme they are. However, in an unusual display of unity, Democrats held firm and stayed on message. What's that message? Women have a right to preventative care coverage by any employer, regardless of secular or religious foundation. So yesterday, when President Obama announced a way to provide the coverage that the Catholic and religious institutions could accept, he was accused of caving or bending because by some on the left who lost sight of the goal.

Those critics on the left who just don't get Barack Obama do so because they lack vision, subtlety, and nuance. Most importantly, the critical left always loses sight of the goal. The goal was not bringing down the Catholic church but to provide the best possible preventative care for women without the co-pays many women cannot afford.

May I offer this extended metaphor. Again those critics on the left are painting by numbers, showing their lack of creativity, imagination, impatience, and foresight, while President Obama is the great master, bringing all of his creativity, imagination, and patience to the canvas. He has a vision for his painting, but he realizes that he is working with a wet canvas requiring layers of paint. To rush through his creation would only leave a muddy mess, not a grand work for generations to appreciate and enjoy.

So I guess the President did cave to those who wanted to launch a war against religion, but for the women of America, who never lost sight of the real goal, it is a grand victory.

Huzzah President Obama!

Must Reads

Frank Schaeffer: President Obama Will Be Vindicated

E.J. Dionne: Clint, Rick and the limits of pessimism

Sahil Kapur: GOP Ripe For Splits In Assault On Birth Control Rule

NY Times Editorial: A Terrible Transportation Bill

Greg Hanscom: Non-starter: Republican transportation bill is dead on arrival

HuffPo: Cal Thomas Apologizes To Rachel Maddow For Contraception Comment

Rachel Maddow: War on Birth Control

Roger Bybee: Obama/Catholic Contraception Controversy Boils Down to Workers’ Rights

Mark Morford: How to be Outraged in America

Steve Benen: Chronicling Mitt's mendacity

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 11, 2012

Extending the Payroll Tax Cut for the Middle Class

GOP Criticizes Eastwood Pro-Detroit Ad

Why do Republicans hate America? How is it possible that right wing ideologues would criticize an ad which touts the comeback of the American auto industry and sees a path toward economic prosperity on the horizon?

"There is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain," [Clint] Eastwood said in a statement to Fox News. "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. ... If Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

Exactly right, Clint. This is about an entire industry, and the people who work in it, scratching and clawing its way back from the dead.

Whether you are pro auto "bailout" or not (and I use the word 'bailout' loosely since it was actually a loan which has been mostly paid back despite the whining lies of Karl Rove), how do you criticize the fact, THE FACT, that the American auto industry was saved and is now back on top due to the loans to keep them afloat while they reorganized and restructured? Not to mention a minimum of one million jobs saved because of it.

For all the shouts and fist shaking of the GOP against President Obama and what they deem to be worse off than we were three years ago, despite proof to the contrary, it is amazing to me that anyone would claim to be pro-America, yet rail against a commercial touting the resurgence of the American auto industry and the resurrection of a major American city... all because they're rather scorch the earth than run against their preposterous narrative for the sake of winning back the White House. And these are the chest thumping America lovers?

Let's not forget that had it been left up to Mitt Romney, the US auto industry would no longer exist.

Equality Wins!

POSTED BY JHW22

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit says NOPE to Prop 8! The court finds it unconstitutional to strip rights away from people because they're gay, despite what the majority of stupid voters say.

What a good news day. Anyone know what Obama has Seal Team Six doing today?

She's Outta There!

POSTED BY JHW22

Karen Handel, the right-winger who was hired by Komen just before all hell broke loose, resigned today. Is it just me, or is her resignation letter a bit much? It's dramatic, written for us and not the recipient, and loaded with seeming contradictions, defensiveness and a denial that by making the decision to defund the "controversial" Planned Parenthood, Komen did something even more controversial.

Brother.

February 7, 2012

The Honorable Nancy Brinker

CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure VIA EMAIL

5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250

Dallas, Texas 75244

Dear Ambassador Brinker:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been the recognized leader for more 30 years in the fight against breast cancer here in the US – and increasingly around the world.

As you know, I have always kept Komen’s mission and the women we serve as my highest priority – as they have been for the entire organization, the Komen Affiliates, our many supporters and donors, and the entire community of breast cancer survivors. I have carried out my responsibilities faithfully and in line with the Board’s objectives and the direction provided by you and Liz.

We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer. However, Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward.

I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants.

What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly.

Just as Komen’s best interests and the fight against breast cancer have always been foremost in every aspect of my work, so too are these my priorities in coming to the decision to resign effective immediately. While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline. It is my most sincere hope that Komen is allowed to now refocus its attention and energies on its mission.

Sincerely,

Clint Made My Day

POSTED BY JHW22

In all the discussions of the Clint Eastwood Chrysler "Halftime in America" ad, all the pundits keeps leaving out the fact that Clint is a big-time Republican. The fact that he did that ad, supporting Obama's policy on the auto bailout, and mimicking Obama's messaging from the State of the Union on "teamwork", says a lot. It says that some Republicans are ready to bring their party back from the fringes and work with the President for a better future. More of that sanity, please.

Must Reads

Elaine Liner: At Plano Children's Theatre, They've Shampooed All the Black Kids out of Hairspray

Pema Levy: What’s Really Behind Komen’s Cuts To Planned Parenthood?

Ross Douthat: Gingrich 2012? Going, Going, Gone

Gin and Tacos: Race for the Cure of Being Irrelevant

Adam Serwer: What Does Komen's Reversal on Planned Parenthood Really Mean?

Bob Cesca: "The Lesser of Two Evils" and Why Progressives Lose

Ruth Marcus: Why the poor should concern Romney

Greg Sargent: Faced with good news about economy, Romney dissolves into incoherence

Nick R. Martin: Brewer Has History Of Getting Facts Wrong

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 4, 2012

It's Time for Congress to Act to Help Responsible Homeowners

Planned Parenthood Not Out of the Komen Woods Yet

As most people, I was a little shocked and pretty stoked when I heard that the Susan G. Komen Foundation had reversed its decision to not grant Planned Parenthood future funds due to the political hackery of it's Senior VP, Karen Handel, despite its denial that the decision was politically based. Handel was on the losing side of a election for the Governorship of Georgia and ran on defunding Planned Parenthood. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that this was strictly a political move. If there's any doubt, why did Komen stop funding to institutions which also happened to be research centers for embryonic stem cells and not only looking for a cure for breast cancer?

But while I was initially pleased that they backtracked after the avalanche of shit that they brought upon themselves, I wasn't exactly thrilled about their statement. This particularly comes to mind:

...We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants...

Continue "existing grants"? That was never in question. In fact, when they released their initial defunding statement, they make the claim that the existing grants would be honored, just not new grants. And as far as applying for future grants, why would that be in question if the organization will basically continue what it's currently doing? Why would they be denied future grants?

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe it's the pulled funding to other facilities and research centers that also are at odds with the pro-life agenda that has me concerned about the sincerity of this statement. The only thing that would make a difference for me personally, would be if the foundation canned Karen Handel as a gesture of good faith that they really are just looking for a cure since their entire organization now seems to be in question.

Until then, continue donating to Planned Parenthood, or the American Cancer Society, or Johns Hopkins, or Sloan-Kettering. Let's be careful about jumping on the pink bandwagon again so soon.

Komen's Statement

POSTED BY JHW22

Statement from Susan G. Komen Board of Directors and Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker

DALLAS - February 3, 2012 - We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

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.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

Women Win!

POSTED BY JHW22

For the last three days, only one political story has dominated my brain: the horrendous shock that the right-wing had seeped into a national charity that most Americans still believed was acting on behalf of women's health.

For years, there has been some distrust of Komen and their spending, questionable relationships leading to silence or approval of things scientists question and the balance of brand vs. integrity. But that was a fairly small rumbling under the surface of the global charity's image. Perhaps it was too overwhelming for most people to ask if a giant in women's health advocacy may not be doing as much good as we needed to believe.

I, for one, have never been a Komen supporter. Something about their strategery has always bothered me. Perhaps it's because I hate pink. But I think I tend to shy away from monolithic organizations whose basic work isn't something I can see. I don't see the researchers in action. I don't see Komen breast clinics anywhere. But I see pink blenders and coffee tumblers and, now, possibly guns.

What I see and support are Planned Parenthood clinics. I actually see where my donations go.

But, overall, Americans believed Komen was an organization that acted on good faith, with integrity and with the sole purpose of reaching as many women as possible. Until three days ago, when we learned they didn't want to reach women who go to those very Planned Parenthood clinics I see around me.

Sure, they had a few reasons: they changed their policies to prevent funding to organizations that are being "investigated", or they changed their strategy to be more laser-like with their funding choices, or they just want to help women and by saying no to Planned Parenthood, they can give more to someone else.

But when you look at their 990s, it's clear that they have plenty of money to continue supporting Planned Parenthood AND increase grants to other organizations and even add new ones. Komen has been so effective that they have more money than the can spend. According to GuideStar (you can get a free account to see financials on any charity) their last year breaks down like this:

Revenue and Expenses

Fiscal Year Starting: Apr 1, 2010
Fiscal Year Ending: Mar 31, 2011

Revenue

Contributions	$285,794,584
Program Services	$34,417,471
Membership Dues	$0
Special Events	$27,473,679
8522668	$1,623,681
Total Revenue	$357,832,083

Expenses

Program Services	$282,981,996
Administrative Costs	$26,276,602
Fundraising Costs	$33,720,165
Payments To Affiliates	$0
Total Expenses	$342,978,763

Assets & Liabilities

Total Assets	$492,190,210
Total Liabilities	$295,307,087
Net Assets or Fund Balance at the end of year	$196,883,123

They still have $196,83,123 left over. So why the need to make changes to better strategerize? They said that Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms so they wanted to give money to clinics with mammogram equipment. Well, I'd like to see data on the number of small towns with Planned Parenthood that have another clinic in town with actual mammogram equipment. My guess is close to NONE. So, they were going to move money away from Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood only gives mammogram "referrals"? I live in a pretty good-sized suburb of a pretty big city. And yet, not one of the doctors I've received my well-woman exams from actually had mammogram equipment. They all refer their patients to the local hospitals for mammograms. So I found that Komen excuse ridiculous.

But they also said they changed their policies to not award funds to organizations under any type of investigation. That makes sense. I've worked the grant process before so that seems reasonable. But, um, anytime I've seen anything like that, the organization had to have actually been found guilty of wrong-doing. And this was where I think Komen fell apart. I truly believe they coordinated their policy change with the Congressional "investigation" and it seemed like a slam-dunk excuse: have a reasonable out while ALSO drawing attention to the ongoing investigation that isn't technically on-going since nothing is actually going on.

There's no way Komen didn't anticipate backlash. They HAD to know there would be protest on the left, and maybe even in the middle. But they had so many on the right who were waiting for this day, that they probably expected a boost of donations and support from the right. I think the right has been acting on pure ego for the last three years. They take aggressive actions as if they are the standard-bearers of values. It hasn't occurred to them until now that maybe their egos got too big. I don't think Komen expected their doctors and researches to cry foul. I don't think it ever occurred to them that they were blinded by their own ideology and were walking into a disaster.

A few things had to have happened to make this week transpire the way it did.

First: as soon as Planned Parenthood was told of this decision, before the holidays according to Cecile Richards, they went into messaging and planning mode. Planned Parenthood was working with Komen to change their minds WHILE they were preparing to tell America that they were sad and surprised. Cecile was calm, composed and classy in every interview. Planned Parenthood's messaging was ONLY about the women who would lose access to care and NEVER about demonizing Komen.

The second thing that had to happen was Komen didn't prepare. They were so unorganized, defensive, inconsistent and sporadic, that I can't see any possible coordination on messaging or planning. They seemed so caught off guard that there is no way they expected what they got. And to not expect this was naive and out-of-touch. The last two years in America has been about organizing, protesting, defending. Why the hell would they not expect this? Because they are convinced that the American people are with them. They expected liberal backlash. But I don't think they prepared for an American onslaught. And the right-wing media is spinning this as a liberal-only issue. But I have heard many Republican, anti-choice women say they were appalled by Komen's actions. They were ill-prepared and it showed.

The last thing that had to happen to make this week happen the way it did: every damn step the GOP has taken since President Obama was sworn in. They have obstructed the President, our doctors, our uteri, our rights, our tax dollars. They have stopped American progress every step of the way on every issue. Americans are so used to it by now. We're stunned and not stunned at the same time, each time they do something new. But Americans didn't see the right-wing covert operation taking place in Komen. So when word got out that Komen was betraying women by denying funds to Planned Parenthood, Americans were SHOCKED and PISSED OFF. Komen took something fairly sacred and crapped all over it. And because we've had enough, and because the right-wing has already make a mockery of government, we hit the roof, blew it off and kicked its ass all over the place.

So, where do we stand now, as far as Komen goes? Well there are a few points to make here. First, no organization is always guaranteed money every year. So they were never "safe". And if today, Komen hadn't reversed their decision to change their policy and commitments, then we'd need to find a way to get Planned Parenthood half a million dollars every year to make up for each year's loss. Yes, we raised a few years' worth for them this week. But we're pissed. What was going to piss us off next February or the next? What would have spurred us to donate then? Well, here's the deal, if Komen denies Planned Parenthood a grant next year, for ANY reason, we will be spurred. So, now Planned Parenthood is getting our money and Komen money. And next year, they will either get Komen money or our money. But Komen's backtracking ensures we will be waiting and watching and preparing to act.

People will be watching Komen more closely. Women are already digging deeper into Komen's financials, their grant lists, their stance on things like embryonic stem cell research and BPA. Women who haven't left Komen for good, will be paying closer attention. And because Planned Parenthood has been consistent and open, more women may start donating more regularly. Also, more breast cancer organizations will start getting deserved attention.

And, finally, we sent a message to the right-wing that they can't have everything. They are done trying to destroy us from the inside out. Komen's decision today is a message to all America that they realize we will NOT allow right-wing stealth attacks anymore. We're on a mission and we are organized. And we are fucking pissed off.

Our next steps should include pressure on Komen to fire Karen Handel who has, no doubt, brought her right-wing ego and tricks to the decision making and could change Komen's pledge to protect ObamaCARES to reflect her strong opposition to it. And we should demand an ethics violation inquiry into Congressman Cliff Stearns and his staff and a possible coordination between them and any organization acting on behalf of Komen to create the false pretense of an investigation and/or for wasting tax dollars on a witch hunt.

Today, Congressman Stearns said

“In response to the original decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to stop funding grants to Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood raised the equivalent funds within 24 hours. Although I wasn’t involved in either decision, it is clear that Planned Parenthood does not need the Komen funding. I believe that Planned Parenthood could be, and should be, totally self sufficient, as with so many other non-profit organizations, and spare America’s hard-pressed taxpayers the $487 million Planned Parenthood received in public funding. As Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I will continue the investigation into Planned Parenthood’s use of taxpayer funds. This oversight is necessary because of its record of fraud discovered through state Medicaid audits and its other abuses and illegal activities, such as ignoring state reporting requirements on sexual abuse.”

I bolded the most disgusting part. Of course Planned Parenthood raised all kinds of cash this week. They were under assault. To use this historic attack on Planned Parenthood to draw a funding conclusion is willfully deceptive and egregious. So, let's not let this man go about his days without some serious fury.

We should keep the momentum of this week and make clear that "We're fired up! We're ready to go!"

The Biggest Loser

Yeah, I know "The Biggest Loser" is a reality show weight lost contest and that Donald Trump's faux reality show is called "The Apprentice" or "Celebrity Apprentice," but it really should be changed, because truly, the only loser bigger than Trump could be Mitt Romney for actually accepting his endorsement today in Sin City.

LAS VEGAS - Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney here Thursday afternoon in a joint appearance that lasted less than seven minutes and included no questions.

The two men stood behind a lectern emblazoned with a gold “Trump” plaque (a large Romney sign hung off to the side, largely out of the TV shots), and the endorsement came amid several impromptu news conferences that Mr. Trump organized for himself.

It seems as though The Donald can't go less than three weeks without looking for headlines like his like depended on it; like the blood in his veins would dry up if he gave up his media whorishness.

It all started yesterday when Trump made a statement on his favorite medium, Twitter:

I will be making a major announcement today at 12:30 pm PST at Trump International Hotel & Tower, Las Vegas, Nevada. The announcement will pertain to the Presidential race. All media welcome.

All media welcome?! Say it ain't so!

At no point in my though process did the idea of Trump announcing an independent run come to mind. My initial thought was that he was going to endorse Romney but was too chickenshit take the lead and do it earlier because his ego wouldn't be able to handle betting on the wrong horse. He waited until after the Florida primary, saw that Newt Gingrich was dead in the water and then thought he'd make a grand announcement and take credit for being a king maker once the odds-on favorite eventually won the nomination.

Then there was rumor that Trump was to endorse Newt Gingrich, and it got me to thinking that perhaps his ego was so bruised after Newt was the only candidate to accept an invitation to the ill-fated Trump debate, that he'd back the one person who was loyal to him. But is loyalty in Trump's repertoire? That rumor quickly faded and so I was left with the chickenshit theory, which happened to be the correct one.

How ironic that the man who made "You're fired" his catchphrase endorsed the man who said he likes "being able to fire people"? The one saving grace in the whole fiasco was that on Groundhog Day, Trump decided to make the Romney endorsement himself instead of letting the groundhog that lives on his head do it.

Mitt's Let Them Eat Cake Moment

Although there are no official records of Marie Antoinette ever having said the phrase, "Let them eat cake" has been attributed to her as an example of her ignorance to the condition of the poor during a French famine. And here is likely Republican nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 Election, Mitt Romney, and his "let them eat cake" moment.

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans,” [Mitt] Romney told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien this morning after his resounding victory in Florida on Tuesday. “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”

Is that safety net the one he would gut if Romney ever took office? Repeal Obamacare? Gut critical programs for the poor in an attempt to balance the budget? Yet another example of Romney being completely out of touch with everyone who isn't a one percenter. Actually, one tenth of a one percenter.

He says he cares about Americans... just not poor Americans.

OMFG!!

Posted by JHW22

I am LIVID! About as LIVID as I get and if you knew me in person, you'd know that's pretty fucking LIVID!

Susan G. Komen decided to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood. Why? Because they hired some right-wing FREAK who has had it out for Planned Parenthood and she decided that because PP is being "investigated" (by fellow Republicans who have it out for Planned Parenthood) they can't get any grant money.

Some gal, in a Facebook comment thread, is saying it's a good thing because abortion increases chances of breast cancer and that PP should only raise private money and Komen should only spend money on research. Forget the fact that the Komen money PP gets IS private money and forget the fact that Komen has given money to PP in the past FOR detection of breast cancer, and forget the fact that, according to Komen's own site:

Research clearly shows abortion (also called induced abortion) does not increase the risk of breast cancer.

Here's the crux of our problem, America. We let FUCKING IDIOTS drown in misinformation to the point that an organization with a reach like Komen's WILLFULLY hires an ideological hack and then they make a decision that essentially relegates the Komen executive board to "Death Panel" status.

The more the right-wing chips -- hell, JACKHAMMERS -- away at PP, the more women will DIE. It's not hyperbolic to say so. Women need access to screenings of all kinds. And yes, some women need access to abortions. But the micro-cosmic backlash on abortion has become a macro-cosmic attack on ALL women. Women who aren't pregnant or seeking abortions will die because right-wing zealots are keeping life-saving services from them because they think that, somehow, this action prevents abortions.

I don't know where Susan G. Komen stood on abortion. But I'd really like to know what she would think about her name becoming the ugliest name associated with women's health care right now.

Don't just be pissed. DONATE to Planned Parenthood, FIGHT all the right-wing candidates in your state, VOTE on election day!

Do NOT let anything keep you from voting, folks! And VOTE wisely. A woman's life may depend on it.

Herman Endorses Newt

Wait... I thought Herman Cain endorsed "the people" just last week.

“There are many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that I know that Speaker Gingrich is a patriot,” Cain said. “Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas and I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder. I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know that he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America.”

Bold ideas like a moon base/future state? Also, sausage grinder!

You just can't make this shit up.

PolitiFact Is Fired...

...by Rachel Maddow. After the head-snapping double take in response to PolitiFact's flawed guidelines in rating a specific quote from President Obama's State of the Union address last Tuesday, and the backtracking that followed, can you believe they did it again?! I'll let Rachel explain.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Must Reads

Chauncey DeVega: The 10 Most Racist Moments of the GOP Primary (So Far)

Andrew Rosenthal: Chris Christie, Revisionist Historian

NY Times: Rabbi’s Followers Cast Doubts on Congressman’s Fund-Raising

James B. Stewart: Paying Far More Than 13.9%: A Taxpayer’s Lament

John Pitney Jr.: Why Gingrich would lose in a debate with Obama

Christopher Brauchli: The Condom's Cousins

Matt Taibbi: Is Obama's 'Economic Populism' for Real?

Jim Wright: The Special Kind of Crazy

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 28, 2012

President’s Blueprint Includes Renewal of American Values

Hard Work?

POSTED BY JHW22

When the Republicans take aim in their class war against Democrats, the middle class and the working class, one of their favorite weapons is the all-too-familiar:

Tax increases punish hard work.

We're to believe that the more a person makes, the harder they must have worked to earn it. Never mind the fact that laying roof tiles in 105 degree Texas heat doesn't earn a guy a million bucks. Apparently it's not as hard as going to board meetings and country club meet and greets. So a guy who owns his own roofing company and does a lot of the work himself pays a good chunk of his income in taxes. Shame on us for taxing that guy so high.

But more shame on us for wanting to tax Mitt Romney so high. Because, gosh darn it, he has so much money, he MUST have worked so gosh darn hard for it.

Take 2010, for example. Mitt worked hard. Why should he pay higher taxes as some kind of punishment for his hard work?

What? What's that you say? Mitt didn't actually work for that income? You mean his income came from a company he USED to do work for and some investments?

Well, my dad decided to retire early when he was laid off and now he works every day investing. He reads, researches, plans, has the coolest spreadsheets in the WORLD. So I'd say he works hard.

What? What's that you say? Mitt didn't actually control his investments? He pays a trustee to make all the investment decisions for him?

WHAT?! So, we're not supposed to punish hard work with higher taxes? Well, then hell! Mitt has been paying someone else to do the work of making him money off of him not working. So, seems to me the "punishing hard work" excuse don't float here.

My Family

POSTED BY JHW22

I'd like to take a moment to share something about my sister-in-law and brother-in-law. They are a working class couple in a rental house, used cars and with a life filled with conquered demons and baggage they faced head-on. They work hard, play hard and enjoy their lives today. They are in their forties and love heavy metal and tattoos. They don't take life too seriously but feel passion for animals, their great friends and family and each other. If you passed them on the street, you might not think they were someone you could learn politics from. But you'd be wrong.

Now, I have my issues with the Occupy movement. There are some things that piss me off. But the one thing I will always be grateful to the movement for, is that it made my SIL and BIL take notice. These are two insightful, curious people. They ask great questions and make considerate connections. They started following Occupy and even attended a protest or two. And then the Facebook posts started coming regularly: links to articles, questions about what they'd heard somewhere, LGBT support links, criticisms of Bachmann.

And it kept coming.

My sister-in-law was a rising lioness. She wasn't shy about her thoughts and she challenged people to pay attention. We have chatted about issues and she trusts that I will have an honest discussion with her. I trust that she's paying attention.

And the other day, she posted this on Facebook

I voted! (for my dist rep) PLEASE HERE ME OUT! I hate politics, but after occupy, questions surfaced, so the last year I have become more informed because I believe solidarity makes changes happen, I ask my trusted informers when I get confused, they help me understand (you all know who you are and I thank you!) VOTING MATTERS! as my SIL helped me understand (and I ended up changing my party)... in reality, there are 2 parties, and usually 2 candidates, no matter how many are in the line up, you know one of the 2 will win, therefore doing a "write in" or voting for a small party candidate is not productive because it doesn't really count against the "worse of the two evils". You may not be on board 100% with either of the 2 at election time, but out of those two you know which one you DO NOT want. THIS YEAR IS VERY IMPORTANT! IT WILL MAKE OR BREAK THE SHIT HOLE WE ARE IN NOW! Get registered if you are not, be a grown up and be an American... YOUR VOTE DOES COUNT!

My favorite part was when she brilliantly discussed the consequences of write-ins and third parties. That is insightful. And this is from a woman who just started paying attention. Can you imagine what a powerful citizen she will be in November?

And last night, they watched the State of the Union and my BIL posted this on my Facebook page

Loved the speech of the Union tonight - Obama sounded like one of us Protesters - Tax the Rich and Save the Poor :) 30 percent tax for everything over a Million dollars a Year :) Someone is Listening :)

See that? A guy who wouldn't normally be paying attention, watched the State of the Union. He's listening and he knows Obama is listening.

I love my SIL and BIL. And I am proud of them. And I am so glad they are on our side.

We have an untapped resource out there. There are people who will vote FOR their best interests, and ours, if they are given a reason to pay attention. And once they start paying attention, we will see a fierce advocacy take hold. Many of their friends spoke up on my SIL's post the other night. They feel empowered, they know the value of a vote. We need to make sure we reach out to the people in our lives that haven't been paying attention and see if they're ready to start.

Politics is intimidating. There's history and all kinds of twists and turns and chaos and confrontation. Why would anyone want to start paying attention to this crap? People shy away. But Barack Obama is the right President for these people. He is thinking of them in his policies. He just needs them to know it and to stand with him. Let's help them feel less intimidated and welcome them to the dark side.

Politifact Can't Be Trusted

This is so disappointing. I was a regular reader of Politifact and linked to them on many occasions as a reference in previous posts. But no longer. Something happened between their inception and the present day that has caused them to skew their fact checking - you can call it opinion management - to avoid the dreaded "liberal bias" label.

Here is a fact, perfectly stated by President Obama in his State of the Union Address last night:

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.

Those are the numbers. Plain and simple. But for some unfathomable reason, Politifact originally labeled this statement as "Half-True" then upgraded it to "Mostly-True." And for what reason? After all, it's a simple statement. It's either true or it's false. How can it possibly be half-true? I'll let Paul Krugman explain:

...Unfortunately, Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage.

...fact-checking should be about checking facts — not about trying to impose some sort of Marquess of Queensbury rules on how you’re allowed to use facts. Aside from undermining the mission, this makes the whole thing subjective — notice that Politifact wasn’t even analyzing what Obama said, they were analyzing their impression about what he might have been trying to imply.

... in practice this turns into a partisan affair. The simple fact is that in today’s US political scene, Republicans make a lot more factual howlers than Democrats. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Yet Politifact wants to be seen as nonpartisan. If it just stuck to the facts, it could say look, we’re just reporting the facts. But having defined its role as something that goes beyond checking facts to saying whether the facts are being used in some “proper” way, it then finds itself under pressure to be “even-handed”, which ends up meaning making excuses for Republican falsehoods and finding ways to criticize Democratic true statements.

Combine this ridiculousness with their 2011 Lie of the Year, and Politifact is Politi-shit. They are supposed to be objective arbiters of statements and they are either true or false. But they've decided to be subjective and my only conclusion is because they're afraid of being labeled a left leaning organization because Republicans are less truthful.

Just in the latest debate Newt Gingrich was asked the following:

Moderator: You've talked about the millions of jobs created by the Reagan tax cuts. If tax cuts create jobs, why didn't the Bush tax cuts work?

Here is the beginning of Newt's answer. Hold on to your seats:

Well, the Bush tax cuts, I think in a period of great difficulty, with the attack of 9/11, actually stopped us from going into a much deeper slump. I think we would have been in much, much worse shape, and I think most economists agree, that in 2002 and '03 and '04 we'd have been in much worse shape without the Bush tax cuts.

What. The. Fuck.

Newt Gingrich actually said the Bush tax cuts, that added a $1.8 trillion to our national debt, stopped us from going into a deeper slump?! I'd like to have a list of "most economists" to which Newt referred. What planet does this motherfucker live on? I'll tell you where - he lives on the planet where people get million dollar credit accounts from jewelry stores and make millions by being the consummate Washington insider.

And how did Politifact rate that whopper of a statement? It wasn't worth mentioning. But a completely truthful statement was rated at best "mostly true" for fear of appearing left leaning.

I rate Politifact's objectivity, Pants on Fire.

President Obama's State of the Union Address - January 24, 2012

State of the Union Tonight

This one is going to be interesting.

Please forgive my lack of posting - burning the candle at both ends eats away blogging time. I'll take notes as best I can and comment on the SOTU in a future post. I'm expecting President Obama to open up a can of whoop-ass... at least I'm hoping he will. Sit back with a beer and enjoy it.