Tuesday, May 22, 2012

I break for Beauty


Photo by Tommy Eliassen / Barcroft Media

This breathtaking shot  is just one of many surreal images of the Northern Lights in Norway that are featured in today's Telegraph.
It's Finals Week at the boys' school, so our schedules--such as they are--have been thrown off somewhat, and certain lads who shall remain nameless are acting as though they're already on vacation, despite constant reminders to study and get to bed early.
If I've ever been more excited to see the end of a week (and term and year), well, I certainly can't remember.  Not that I am a fan of Florida's summers, mind you.  Ugh.  I'm just a fan of writing late at night and sleeping until it's truly light outside, you know?
So while I wait for the first round of exams to be over today, I'll think of the Northern Lights and try to imagine chill, salt-flecked breezes and the sensation of deep quiet.
Got an inspiring, beautiful link for me?  Share it in comments, please (invitations to extend my nonexistent man-bits are excepted, dear spammers).
(H/T Melissa

Monday, May 21, 2012

Police brutality at the NATO Summit in Chicago (UPDATED)


"My kind of town"
Chicago police, a random pedestrian, and an ironic bus message
photo by James Watkins

As expected, the scene in Chicago this weekend, as numerous groups dedicated to peaceful, non-violent protest, assembled and marched in that city, was marked by countless incidents of police brutality.  Initially, media reported "a few hundred protesters", but actual numbers (of demonstrators) were closer to 75,000 (I have not seen an official number anywhere just yet).

The Guardian is running a terrific live-blog of the #NoNATO protests.  If you're on Twitter, be sure to follow @OccupyWallSt @OccupyChicago for up-to-the-minute information and photos.

And here are just a few of the disturbing images pulled from my Twitter feed:





One of numerous photojournalists who were injured and/or arrested while covering the NATO Summit and attendant protests:



Getty photographer Joshua Lott being arrested while doing his job (or trying to):


UPDATE:

There are many more excellent photos of Sunday's protests at the Chicago Tribune's gallery.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Heartless

"One can draw a straight line from the young man who pinned down a terrified teenager and walked a blind man into a closed door, to the adult who put the family dog in a kennel and strapped it to the roof of the car, to the businessman who laid off hundreds of people, cancelled their health benefits, and paid himself millions while their company went bankrupt. And the line continues: the governor who slashed education and raised fees on the middle class, and the possible president who would use his power to cut taxes on his fellow millionaires while pushing for the gradual demise of traditional Medicare."


-- Paul Begala in The Daily Beast


(H/T Dogs Against Romney)

Friday, May 11, 2012

Friday Frank: Punky's Whips; live, with Terry Bozzio



I agree with one of the comments at YouTube: No, it isn't drugs--just Frank Zappa and Terry Bozzio.

Mercy, that's some wicked guitar-playing. And as for then-wunderkind Bozzio, well, his talent more than makes up for his fashion sense (or lack thereof).

Make it an epic Bon Weekend, everyone.

XXX
D.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Baby ordered off plane: JetBlue's or TSA's fault?



An 18-month-old baby girl had cleared security at the Ft. Lauderdale Airport and, along with her parents, had already boarded the JetBlue flight when an airline representative advised the family that the TSA wanted her to get off the plane (emphasis mine):
“And I said, ‘For what?’” Riyanna’s mother told only WPBF 25 News on Wednesday. “And he said, ‘Well, it’s not you or your husband. Your daughter was flagged as no fly.‘ I said, ‘Excuse me?’”
Riyanna’s father was flabbergasted.
“It’s absurd,” he said. “It made no sense. Why would an 18-month-old child be on a no-fly list?”
Why, indeed. (Though you can see that this moppet’s ringlets are definitely heartbreaking, if not exactly threatening.)
It’s not enough that the TSA is terrifying young children by separating them from their parents, disallowing hugs from grandmothers, and barking at caregivers that they MUST NOT TOUCH the frightened child the TSA is busily groping. Now they’re yanking families from airplanes after clearing them and issuing them boarding passes.
And as you’d imagine, there is a cultural component to this:
Riyanna’s parents, who asked not to be identified, said they think they know the answer to that question. They believe they were profiled because they are both of Middle Eastern descent. Riyanna’s mother wears a hijab, a traditional head scarf. That’s why they have asked to remain anonymous. They said they’re concerned about repurcussions. That said, they are both Americans, born and raised in New Jersey, just like their daughter.


Ah, the dreaded Terrorist Scarf of Doom. This incident is remniscent of celebrity cook Rachael Ray’s experience with Manufactured Fear American-style when she wore a checkered neck scarf in a Dunkin’ Donuts commercial, raising the hackles of an anti-Muslim blogger who promptly called for a boycott of the popular chain. (Alas, Dunkin’ Donuts caved and pulled the ad.)
As readers of this blog are well aware, however, the TSA is oblivious to public concern, anger, and even mockery, and they can always be counted on to take fear mongering to new, absurd levels. And then obfuscate as needed, or else lie:


WPBF contacted JetBlue and was told this was an issue with the Transportation Safety Administration. JetBlue also said both it and the TSA are investigating the incident.
But the TSA disagreed, telling WPBF this is an airline issue and therefore, it is not investigating.
So who called for the baby girl’s removal, when, and why? Why were her parents singled out and humiliated this way? If little Riyanna really was on a No-Fly list, error or not, why were she and her parents issued boarding passes — shouldn’t all No-Flys be stopped from getting on board a vehicle that does just that: flies?
While we wait for answers to those questions, perhaps the TSA and DHS could inform every American family whose ill fortune it is to be on this No Fly list without cause. That way, they can preemptively hire all the best attorneys before they make their summer vacation plans.


UPDATE: Erik Kain at Forbes, who also reported on this today, writes:
  
The TSA has reached out to me with a statement on this incident:
“TSA did not flag this child as being on the No Fly list. TSA was called to the gate by the airline and after talking to the parents and confirming through our vetting system, TSA determined the airline had mistakenly indicated the child was on a government watch list.”
“Individuals on the No Fly list do not get boarding passes,” the TSA also noted.
TSA was called to the gate by the airline?  Whom TSA are now blaming for "mistakenly indicating the child was on a government watch list?"  Meaning, TSA expect us to believe Jet Blue are so stunningly ignorant, they would think an 18-month-old baby was on a "government watch list" and were willing to hold up a plane loaded with passengers due to this "mistaken" impression?

I smell a big, blue-gloved rat.
Also at TSA News

Saturday, May 05, 2012

Republicans fear our venomous vaginas





This video is very funny, though not "funny ha-ha" as much as funny-sad.

And the saddest thing about it--apart from the fact that women's bodies are once again being used as political footballs--is this quote, which attempts to defend the Republicans' indefensible stance on denying rape victims the right to an abortion, from former State Rep. Stephen Freind (R) of Pennsylvania:

"The traumatic experience of rape causes a woman to secrete a certain secretion that tends to kill sperm." 

This is an adult American former lawmaker presumably one who has a college degree and attorney.  He helped make laws that affect hundreds of thousands of women in Pennsylvania. And like most of our Florida state lege, he is bog-stupid about science, about biology, about women's bodies.

Good fucking grief.

Fellow women, our vaginas are venomous.  Well, it certainly explains why Republican men are so scared of them.

(H/T @RealMenDontHate)

UPDATE:  Stephen Freind attended Villanova University as well as law school--Temple University, where he received his J.D.   Apparently, having college degrees does not necessarily mean one is educated.

Friday, May 04, 2012

Friday Frank: St. Etienne; 1982




Friday Frank is back! Let's start the day with a gorgeous guitar meditation: St. Etienne, the second solo from Drowning Witch (album: Ship Arriving Too Late to Save a Drowning Witch).

You didn't think I'd let that metaphor go by without mention, did you?! The ship is us, the People. The drowning witch is our civil liberties--particularly the Fourth-Amendment-guaranteed freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, which government has somehow convinced Americans is a Bad Thing, a Bad Thing that must be drowned and done away with if we're to keep everyone safe from the Terrorists Hiding Behind Every Corner.

And with that thought...

Bon Weekend, Everyone.

XXX
DNT

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Musing on Mad Men: The Memento Mori and Far Away Places; Yellow roses, time, and running and returning


 
"Respice post te! Hominem te esse memento! Memento mori!"
"Look behind you! Remember that you are but a man! Remember that you'll die!" said the servant to the victorious Roman General.  "You may ride in triumph today, but remember, tomorrow you may fall."
-- From Apologeticum, The Apology, ca. 197 A.D., by Tertullian. 
*** 
"All absence is death if we let ourselves know it." -- Dr. Orcutt 
*** 
"I thought you were dead!" -- Don Draper, having run away from, and then returned to, his wife Megan

This week's episode of Mad MenFar Away Places, was at once an Apologeticum (an explanation, or else defense, through the use of words); an exercise in synesthesia (the overlapping of sensory experiences, such as color and memory, so they are perceived simultaneously and surreally) that was somehow made real for the two-dimensional screen; and a thick and thrice-looped tapestry shot through with pain and possession; heartbreak and loss; and ultimately, love, and the absence of love.

I was utterly spellbound, from beginning (to beginning to beginning) to end.

As I reflected on the stories and characters--as I began to scribble down my reactions--certain motifs floated across the page. The theme of time's elasticity--as expressed in the story of Michael Ginsberg's birth in a concentration camp; as perceived and recorded in Judaism; as experienced during an LSD hallucination. The mysterious yellow roses scattered throughout the first two story loops--roses that were budding, blooming, and ultimately shattered. The fear of death--of one's lover, of one's career, of oneself. And finally, the intertwined warp threads of apology and forgiveness that held together this exquisite hour of theater.

The episode opens with Peggy, dressed in a full slip with yellow roses embroidered across the breasts. She's trying to get ready for a big presentation to Heinz, a difficult client, and she can't find her talisman: a pack of violet candy Don had given her. Her lover Abe tries to calm her by promising to buy her another pack and say a brucha--a blessing in Hebrew--over it.  Peggy insists that it won't be the same, and heads to the office, hoping to find her good-luck candy there.

She arrives to find Michael Ginsberg already at work.  For the careful listener, there's an enormous clue as to what lies ahead in what Ginsberg says on the telephone to, we're led to believe, his father: "This conversation just went in a circle and we're back where we started."   Behind them, amid various photographs and drawings, a painting of yellow roses hangs on the wall.

Peggy's presentation does not go well, to put it mildly. She is the first (but not the last) to effect a change of scenery--to flee for a while. One impulsive encounter with a stranger in the movie theater later, Peggy returns to the office, falls asleep on Don's couch, and loses touch with time altogether--at least until Don calls. A voice from the future.
About those yellow roses: They haunted me. What was it about those sunny, shapely flowers that pricked at my memory, I wondered. Why did seeing them--again and again, in the office scenes as well as later, in Roger and Jane's story--sadden me so? Then, a realization: I had seen that form before, those gold points rendered in coarse wool instead of ethereal petal. They'd been sewn to the shirts of Europe's Jews at Hitler's behest, those six-pointed stars.  A few of them were displayed in a cabinet at Dachau, a German concentration-camp-turned-museum that I'd walked through, my arm tightly linked with that of my weeping best friend Anne, during a high school trip abroad.

A quick Google search led me to The Yellow Rose Project, a Toronto-based group dedicated to preserving the stories and memories of the Holocaust even as remaining survivors grow fewer in number each year.  From their home page:
I used to be designated with a yellow star but now I am celebrated with a yellow rose.
Interestingly, my research into the meaning of flowers--specifically yellow roses--turned up a variety of sentiments, with the most common ones being betrayal, apology, and forgiveness.
On to the theme of time, then.  According to author and Rabbi Maurice Lamm:
Jews keep time in a unique way from the rest of the world. The major ideas of the Jewish religion, even though they are intangible, are made accessible by being embedded in time. [...] In Jewish time, the day begins with the onset of night (the appearance of the stars) followed by the morning (which technically begins with the appearance of the North Star). According to some Jewish teachers, night and morning begin with sunset and sunrise respectively. For that is how the Torah describes it: "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." 
Beginning the day with the night is, in a sense, a metaphor of life itself. Life begins in the darkness of the womb, then bursts into the brightness of the light and eventually settles into the darkness of the grave, which, in turn, is followed by a new dawn in the world-to-come. 
Life consists of light and dark: "And there was evening and there was morning." What we make of time is what counts.
The notion of time--its passing, its circling around, its expansion and contraction--provides visual and aural continuity in Faraway Places, linking the elements of the overlapping dramatic triptych in ways at once comforting and disturbing. There are numerous glances at watches, which tell it like it is--or, at least, as it is supposed to be. There are forays into the world of contracted time, when Roger's cigarette turns to a tiny butt in an instant, and overlapped time, when his partner Don appears--as though at the office--and tells him to go and be "in the truth" with his wife.

And having pulled a single flower from the plump arrangement of yellow roses on the Orcutt's table, Jane appears to feel time pause as she dances with Roger. "It's perfect here," she tells him. At home in the bathtub with Jane, Roger goes back in time and relives a joyful experience: the 1919 World Series. Later, the couple lie side-by-side, flat on their backs. Jane's elaborately beaded Roman updo--was she going for Veritas, the Goddess of Truth?--is now wrapped in a pink towel like Roger's. "What time is it?" he asks. "How could a few numbers contain all of time?" Jane wonders. We sense their baptismal renewal as they lay on the floor, gazing at the Greco-Roman light fixture hovering above them like an autumn moon; we know that neither Sterling will ever see things quite the same way again.

And so it is come morning, when Jane lays among scattered yellow petals. Roger reminds her about their shared journey through time and truth and tells her she spoke in German. It was really Yiddish, she tells him. When Roger leans in to kiss Jane goodbye, we see more yellow roses in a vase in the background. As they part company for the last time--and you have to listen closely here--a mournful oboe is preceded by the faintest chime of a grandfather clock, counting time, and that in turn becomes the ringing telephones of the SCDP office.
Now come the Drapers, with Megan in sharp orange, dressed for the occasion--a visit to an upstate Howard Johnson's--she didn't know she'd be participating in. It is the same time as earlier in the show--which is to say, the time when Peggy was sorting herself out for the Heinz presentation, before she tangled with the sexist client who had her taken off the account; before she ran away and came back, fell asleep, and called Abe to tell him--again--that she always needs him. Don tells Megan she has to accompany him on this trip, and although she's clearly torn about leaving work she enjoys, off they go.

Don is not Jewish, but I found the following passage, from The Concept of Absolute Time in Science and Jewish Thought, to be illuminating:
In this system human temporal existence takes place, along with one's perception of the world. In such a system the Creator is perceived as 'Nothing'-consonant with the universe having been created from Nothing. 'Nothing' is the Absolute that is not humanly perceived; it is absent from the human proper coordinate system, and not involved in the humanly perceived world.
There is a special cycle in this system comprised of the dual-process of 'escape and return,' (ratso and shov). [...] The process of escaping implies the aspiration to reach the Absolute, to comprehend the Almighty, and to merge with Him.
In the final limit, it implies the departure of the soul from the body, i.e., transformation back into Nothing in the material sense. The opposite process to escaping is that of returning to the physical world in which we live. According to a Hasidic concept, each individual as well as the Absolute possess the proper, permanently recurrent ratso-shov cycle.
What does this have to do with Don Draper? Jay Michaelson's essay about the "reminder that you will die"-- Memento Mori: Jewish Spirituality and the Sanctification of the World -- clarifies it a bit:
One distinctive feature of Jewish conceptions of enlightenment...is that awakened consciousness is viewed not as a “steady state,” but as ratso v’shov (literally “running and returning”), oscillation between expanded and contracted mind, being and nothingness. The experience of enlightenment is one of movement between...“God’s point of view” and “our point of view.”
Ratso v’shov. Running and returning. Is that not exactly what Don has been doing throughout his entire life? The problem is, he has it backwards: by running from his childhood, running from his own identity, and running from Betty, and now Megan, he is not escaping the physical, the painful, and running toward enlightenment and love.  So, throughout Don's years of back-and-forth between being (who he is) and not-being, he never achieves an ecstatic state; he never knows the pure joy of love for love's sake. He might convince the world (and the audience) that he loves Megan, but his words belie a different sort of arrangement altogether, one that has to do with ownership, with belonging to and taking from; with losing and finding.

Recall Don's words to Roger when he learned of Betty's ill health a few episodes back: Rather than sympathy for someone facing a possible future of pain, sickness, and untimely death, he mused how awful it would be for his children "to grow up without a mother."  Skip ahead to Far Away Places, and listen to the ownership-tinged language Don uses when talking to and about Megan.  He jokingly orders her to go along with him on the Howard Johnson trip; on the road, he tells her there has to be some advantage to being the boss's wife.

At the Howard Johnson restaurant, Don tells the waitress to bring them orange sherbet and two spoons, ignoring the fact that Megan wanted pie. And when Megan doesn't fold in two and acquiesce (she's finally had enough of being told what to do when she had other plans), he launches into a tirade, accusing her of wanting to embarrass him, and of talking about him in French to her mother. Megan lashes back with a low blow aimed at Don's dark past--Why don't you call your mother--and off goes Don, running away yet again, out to the parking lot. Get in the car, he orders her.  She wants to talk; Don just wants to run away, and so he does, his gaze fixed eerily ahead as he speeds off.

Have you seen my wife?  Was my wife here? And later, I thought I lost you. There is no apology, just that: an admission that he almost lost something, that it was a fight, and now it's over. He still doesn't get it. There is no enlightenment for Don--not yet anyway. He will run and return again.

And in the final scene, wherein Bert calls Don to the conference room and regales him with another Memento Mori--this time about the way his work is suffering, about his not being infallible and invincible--we're left wondering how many more cycles of Ratso v’shov, of running and returning, Don will go through before he'll know love.

Also at Basket of Kisses, the Premiere Mad Men Blog

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Happy Valentine's Day



The conflict of the ages--love versus art; passion versus Passion--brought to life in this segment from the gorgeous, disturbing, and utterly compelling 1948 ballet film The Red Shoes. Enjoy!

May your day be filled with beauty and your heart filled with love--or at least, lust--for career and lovers alike. #YouCanHaveItAll #OrSoTheyTellMe

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Litbrit, resident Twittering clairvoyant, on the Catholics Vs. Contraceptives conflict

While watching MSNBC yesterday morning, at 9:49 am, I Tweeted:


.@BarackObama @MSNBC @JoeNBC @MorningMika *IDEA* Have all insurance cos EAT the cost of BC coverage. All MUST offer it--like a lagniappe.
Three minutes later, at 9:52 am, I elaborated further, Tweeting:
.@BarackObama @MSNBC @JoeNBC @MorningMika *IDEA* BirthControl cheaper thn maternity coverge. Make insurance co. provide FREE.
and as you'll see, writer and blogger Jeff Fecke replied "Sounds like that could be the plan". Not having heard anything myself at that point, I replied that I would be "amazed and happy" if it were, but I wasn't holding my breath. Then Jeff supplied a link to the then-breaking news. Look:



When I thought about all this yesterday morning--well before the White House officially announced the plan, ahem, you're welcome President Obama*--I was musing about what would the best way forward that could simultaneously give the Catholic Bishops the deniability they ostensibly needed (let's give them the benefit of the doubt here and assume that they really are just aggrieved at having their beliefs violated, and that this has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone wanting to control women's lives) and give women employees of Catholic-owned businesses the access to birth control that they needed.

I reasoned that by making free birth control an inherent part of the medical insurance policies themselves--wherein coverage costs exactly the same whether the individuals so covered avail themselves of contraceptives or not--the accommodation would afford the Catholic Church a moral "out" of sorts. They would be able to view purchasing and providing healthcare insurance the way they might view a drugstore. There is a broad variety of products for sale within said store, products that a Catholic needs, even as there are other products for sale--on the shelves in the contraceptive aisle, for example--that a devout, birth-control-opposing Catholic would not select for his or her own use. In other words, the mere existence of Cathlic-Church-prohibited products within that store does not, itself, render the other, needed products--along with the entire store--anathema to Catholics, since they will only be purchasing that which they need and want and are not in any way being forced to pay for the prohibited products. The existence of those prohibited products simply comes along with the existence of the store.

It was a semantic dodge and a fungibility dodge, yes. But it worked for me.

And agreeing to comply with this policy adjustment would surely be a financial consideration for the insurance companies--as I pointed out in the second Tweet above. Good grief, it's pretty straightforward math to state that it costs far less to provide a woman with contraceptives than it does to cover the skyrocketing costs associated with obstetric care, and that's when all goes smoothly, which as we know, it often doesn't. Emergency C-sections are expensive. Neonatal intensive care is mind-bogglingly expensive. Babies are expensive, period.

But you know what? I don't mind. If the way to the insurance industries' heart (such as it is) is through their bottom line, so be it. (Yes, they are getting a killer of a sweetheart deal with this Affordable Care Act, which is a post for another day, I promise.)

For women of all religions and no religion alike, yesterday's announcement was win-win. We women don't get to see those very often, and I think it's a good idea to commit to memory the various anti-women, anti-choice, and flat-out misogynist statements we heard some politicians throw around this week. Those politicians aren't going anywhere, not unless half the nation's voting-age citizens--the ones in actual possession of the uteri that these jokers in Washington are treating like their personal property, or else footballs--begins sending them away for good and replacing them with leaders more given to solving critical problems than resurrecting long-settled debates over matters that are none of their business.

[*I kid, I kid...]

Sunday, February 05, 2012

Ron Paul's offensive and the War on Women


On Friday evening, Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul spoke to CNN's Piers Morgan about his views on abortion.

Ron Paul does not, himself, have a uterus, and although he was once a practicing OB/Gyn, he cannot speak with any personal experience whatsoever when it comes to the matters of pregnancy and childbirth. Nonetheless, Paul held forth on what he feels we women should be permitted to do when faced with the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy. Specifically, an unplanned pregnancy resulting from rape.

I'm still having trouble getting my head around Paul's jaw-dropping words, so let me just quote him directly, and then I'll try my hand at parsing this utterly ridiculous statement:

"If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen."

Setting aside the obvious sexism inherent in telling women what to do with their own bodies, one thing that jumped out at me was Paul's exceedingly callous use of the term "that individual" and the ungrammatical use of the gender-neutral pronoun "them". An individual who has been raped and who might then be concerned about having been impregnated by the rapist is by definition a woman. Yet Paul does not say "woman"; he says "that individual", effectively disappearing an entire sex. The female sex. The very sex that goes through pregnancy and childbirth; the very sex that is disproportionately represented among rape victims (RAINN notes that in 2003, 9 of every 10 rape victims were female.) I'll put on my English teacher's hat for a moment and note that while the mistaken use of the neutral plural pronouns they, their, and them for a singular subject of unknown gender--as opposed to he or she, his or hers, and him or her--has become so commonplace in casual speaking as to be accepted in all but the most formal expressions of language, English does indeed provide gender-specific pronouns for use when the subject or object is unquestionably female. As a rape victim facing a potential pregnancy will invariably be.

Yes, it's easily dismissed as a slip of the tongue, but I submit that this odd, distancing use of the words "that individual" and "them" is rather telling. It smacks of the phrase those people. In other words, not us, but them. The Others. The people who are not like me; the people to whom I do not relate.

Let's look at the next telling part of Paul's statement now. The part where he helpfully orders that individual--excuse me, the raped and possibly impregnated woman in question--to go directly to the emergency room. As rape victims will sadly confirm, when you've been raped, you'll most likely be non compos mentis--not in a clear, organized state of mind (if indeed you are lucky to even be awake, as many rapes take place after the rapist drugs his victim or physically renders her unconscious). Does Paul truly believe that every rape victim can and will go straight to the hospital? As my friend Valerie so succinctly put it in our Facebook discussion yesterday:

"Yes, everybody who's just been raped instantly feels fresh, energetic, and present of mind enough to haul ass down to the ER and ask for an 'estrogen shot'."

Again, Paul's words display a staggering disregard for people who are not Ron Paul. And a complete lack of understanding and sympathy for victims of a crime that Paul, purely by dint of his gender and socioeconomic status, is unlikely to have experienced himself.

But the most abominable element of Paul's statement about What We Raped Women Must Do--the bit that's unsurprisingly garnering the most attention and negative press--is the phrase "honest rape".

Again, I must turn to my love of language here, because I believe that by examining word choices and the manner in which a person frames a concept, we can discover a great deal about his or her character, motivation, and general goodness (or lack thereof).

Honest rape.

What an extraordinarily awful phrase that is. Paul was probably trying to say something to the effect of "a bona fide case of rape, that is, sexual assault as opposed to consensual sex"--and this attitude is of course imbued with its own awfulness along with no small amount of definitional ambiguity--but that is not what he said. He said honest rape. Implying that there are rapes that aren't honest, because women lie. Implying that some rapes, at least, are not "honest" ones--they're dishonest rapes: fabrications, or else stories made up by women who had unprotected sex that they now regret. [Those dirty sluts.]

And it further implies that he, a white male conservative who's apparently crowned himself King and Ruler of American Uteri (and knower of what's best for us) will want you to meet his standard--his personal definition of having been Honestly Raped--if you show up in his emergency room. Will you need to be bruised and bleeding before he'll let you have that "estrogen shot"? (Note to Dr. Paul: there is a safe, effective, simple-to-take medication available to women nowadays--it's called Levonorgestrel, aka "the morning-after pill", or Plan B.) What if your rapist drugged you, meaning you were unconscious during the crime and thus have no outer bruising or lacerations from trying to fight back? What if you couldn't or wouldn't fight back because, oh, I don't know, perhaps you were threatened with being killed? Perhaps the rapist held a weapon to your head? Perhaps other rapists held you down?

What about cases of incest, where the victim not only knows her rapist but is related to him?

What about date rape, where the victim knows her rapist and was unfortunate to be in the near vicinity when he somehow forgot the meaning of the word NO? Is that an "honest rape" or not, Dr. Paul?

I keep coming to the same conclusion I always reach: anti-choicers simply do not see women as fully human--as people--and they do not trust us to make the right choice for our own health; our own private, personal bodies; our own futures.

If these obdurate, pandering, uterus-free politicians had any sense or sensibility, they would just say, "I'm a man, so it's really not my decision to make, is it? Let's leave it at that, Piers/Wolf/whoever," and keep their opinions about abortion, sincere or not, to themselves.

Because--honestly--it really isn't any business of theirs.

Friday, February 03, 2012

Planned Parenthood for the win

Poster by Darcy Burner, candidate for the United States Congress, representing Washington state.

[UPDATED BELOW]

What an exceptionally interesting week it has been. News on the women's healthcare front has been coming at us thick and fast, so I thought I'd put together an up-to-the-minute summary of all things Planned Parenthood and Komen for the Cure (reserving the right to further update things later today, of course):

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he will personally give $250,000 to Planned Parenthood, stating "Politics have no place in health care...breast cancer screening saves lives, and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way." Bravo for this, Mayor Bloomberg.

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell interviewed Komen founder and ambassador Nancy Brinker; Brinker called the storm of outrage (about Komen's defunding of Planned Parenthood's cancer screenings) "a mischaracterization", and essentially prevaricated, dodged, and lied her way through the segment. To her credit, Mitchell--herself a breast cancer survivor--did not let her off the hook, despite having had personal ties to the organization that included fundraising and participating in the race. Brinker said, "...all I can tell you is that the responses we're getting are very, very favorable. People who have bothered to read the material, who have bothered to understand the issues -- again, we work for a mission, every day of our lives." [Brinker surely isn't referring to Komen's Facebook page, where on Wednesday evening, comments were already in the thousands, with negative reactions far outnumbering the handful of anti-choice-based positive ones.]

Writing at The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg reveals some nasty truths that completely lay waste to Brinker's (and other Komen execs') claims that the defunding of Planned Parenthood had nothing to do with anti-choice politics: "...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."

This "no investigations, or no grants" rule at Komen would only seem to apply to Planned Parenthood (aka the Religious Right's much-wanted quarry and the House Republicans' favorite punching bag). Certainly it does not apply to Penn State, currently under federal investigation for a horrific child-rape scandal: Komen awarded the university a generous 5-year $7.5 million grant in 2008 and has made absolutely no efforts to defund the school in the months since the investigation was launched. Are we to deduce that Komen must really, really love football, given that it has one set of rules for an athletic institution that covers up the rape and abuse of children by its employees, and a completely different set for a program that provides access to cancer screening for low-income women? You tell me.

A growing number of Komen leaders are already resigning in protest of Tuesday's announcement.

Hollywood is running the other way, too. Kudos to Ellen Barkin and Rosanne Barr, who've been especially vocal in their outrage.

And the Komen "brand"? As one who studied advertising, I can tell you this much: it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to recover from this. Salon's Joan Walsh predicted this on Tuesday and tweeted "The Komen Foundation just destroyed its brand, and it's going to be very, very sorry." In the hours since, the arrogant digging-in--and outright lying--by founder Nancy Brinker and anti-choice mouthpiece Karen Handel have all but dealt a death blow to the Pink Menace. (Amazingly, Handel tweeted, and then deleted, a boastful "cry me a river" message, referring to how she felt about Planned Parenthood's dismay at being defunded.) Every PR expert will tell you the same thing: when you screw up so publicly and undeniably, you've got to get out there immediately and admit it, apologize, and make a very public effort to put things right. That's obviously not what Brinker and Handel are doing, so one can assume they're perfectly fine with their respective parts in the complete destruction of the country's largest breast cancer charity. Well-done, ladies! Well-done.

But there's some really good news to report, too.

In a stunning feat of timing, Léa Pool's acclaimed indie movie, Pink Ribbons, which exposes the dark side of Komen's pink-ribbon marketing crusade--many of the details of which I wrote about on Wednesday--and which is set to premiere in theatres today (!), will likely have a far bigger audience than I imagine its creators dreamed possible.

And Planned Parenthood, amazingly, received $400,000 in donations (in addition to Mayor Bloomberg's pledge) within the first twenty-four hours after Komen's defunding announcement; gifts small and large continue to pour in.

And best of all, a significant portion of our busy, distracted, stressed-out populace has finally had its eyes opened to the harmful and extremist politics of the Religious Wrong Right, and it clearly doesn't like what it sees. Here's hoping that energy continues to build--who knows, we who've been banging the single-payer drum for years may be able to parlay America's newly-adopted "keep politics out of healthcare!" philosophy into another moral step forward and upward for the nation: keeping the profit motive out of healthcare, too.

A girl can dream.

------

UPDATE: Komen just issued a statement apologizing and announcing they are reversing their decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood for the WIN, indeed!

Even so, if Komen are committed to saving lives as opposed to injecting extremist anti-choice politics into women's healthcare, there is something else they must do, something very important: fire Karen Handel, along with everyone else in the organization who's responsible for this week's disgusting display of anti-choice bullying. As Cynematic at MOMocrats says, A uterus is not a football.

UPDATE 2: In response to the apology letter, Kaili Joy Gray at Daily Kos makes some important points:
Sorry, but to me, this looks like more damage control. If Komen is really sorry and really changing its criteria and really continuing to fund Planned Parenthood's cancer screening and prevention programs, why doesn't it say so in big, bold letters?

This just looks like a further attempt to try to save Komen's battered image. Is that enough for you?

Want to support a real pro-women organization that really does focus on women's health care, not politics?


UPDATE 3: It seems Komen has also stopped funding stem-cell research. *Sigh* This little defunding move was quietly enacted in November, 2011. At this point, I don't think anyone doubts that Komen's leadership is infested with anti-choice, anti-science extremists, but oh dear, what nasty pink icing on the already-damaged cake this is. From Care2:

In addition to pulling funds from Planned Parenthood for The Susan G. Komen Foundation also decided to stop funding embryonic stem cell research centers making it fully transparent the organization has evolved from non-political non-profit to a partisan advocacy organization.

That means the loss of $3.75 million to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University. That’s a loss of nearly $12 million dollars in research money to eradicate breast cancer this year alone.

This is a new position for the organization which had previously supported all sorts of scientific research targeted at finding a cure for breast cancer and saving women’s lives. It’s new position is that the organization will categorically no longer support any embryonic stem cell research.

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

On Susan G. Komen For the Cure: Pink ribbons and an opened can of worms


The largest and most well-funded breast cancer organization in America, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, announced on Tuesday that it would no longer give cancer-screening funds to Planned Parenthood. Simply put, this will mean that many thousands of low-income and uninsured American women--nearly 170,000 of them, in fact--will have to go without clinical breast exams and mammograms:

Over the past five years, the Komen organization has given Planned Parenthood health centers the funds to provide nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams to low-income and uninsured women. But now, amid pressure from anti-abortion lawmakers and organizations, Komen has made the decision to cut off hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to Planned Parenthood.

And as you may have already heard, Komen's unconscionable defunding move has absolutely nothing to do with supporting women nor with providing them with the means to detect cancer at an early stage, which for many will improve prognosis and survival rates.

No, Komen has decided to inject extremist anti-choice politics into women's healthcare, and in so doing, they've inadvertently exposed the extremism and greed of their organization's administration as well as its troubling modus operandi (of which more in a moment).

In April, 2011, Komen appointed former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel as Vice President. As Georgia residents already know, Handel, who ran for governor of that state in 2010, is a vocal opponent of choice. Despite having no background whatsoever in medicine or science--or, indeed, a degree of any sort beyond a high-school diploma--and no work experience in health care (unless one considers working for Hallmark Cards as somehow being part of the healthcare arena), Handel declared that when she was elected governor, she would determine the medical fates of countless low-income Georgia women by cutting off state funding for Planned Parenthood's breast and cervical cancer screening services:

First, let me be clear, since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood. During my time as Chairman of Fulton County, there were federal and state pass-through grants that were awarded to Planned Parenthood for breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as a “Healthy Babies Initiative.” The grant was authorized, regulated, administered and distributed through the State of Georgia. Because of the criteria, regulations and parameters of the grant, Planned Parenthood was the only eligible vendor approved to meet the state criteria. Additionally, none of the services in any way involved abortions or abortion-related services. In fact, state and federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions or abortion related services and I strongly support those laws. Since grants like these are from the state I’ll eliminate them as your next Governor.

The above paragraph comes directly from Handel's campaign blog, so one can safely assume that her anti-choice defunding scheme was well-known to the people in charge at Komen when they appointed her. And now we know about it, too.

What's more, many of us busy women who've made donations in the past--or perhaps even walked or run in the famous Race for the Cure--are now, finally, taking a good, hard look at this slickly-marketed charitable organization, and what we're discovering is truly taking the pretty out of pink.

Where the money comes from and goes

From the Komen Wiki page:

In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, ending March 31, 2010, Komen reported approximately US $400 million in earnings. Of this, $365 million (91.3 percent) came from contributions from the public, including donations, sponsorships, race entry fees, and contributed goods and services. Approximately $35 million (8.8 percent) came from interest and dividends and gains on investments.

Expenditures (for the same year):

And what of those "fund-raising costs" and "administrative costs"?

According to Charity Navigator, the annual salary of the organization's former CEO and president alone was over $450,000 (it is unclear what the current president's salary is). One can access Komen's financial statements via their website, but finding the executives' individual salaries is tricky. One thing is certain, though: the hefty administrative salaries are not advertised on race materials, nor are they listed on any of the myriad pinked-out products that line the shelves during Breast Cancer Awareness month.

In addition to these salaries--which are quite high by any standards--Komen, who are ever protective of their enormous pink goose and its golden egg-laying talents, spend an unspecified yearly sum suing other non-profits who dare to use any variation of the phrase "for the cure" in their advertising and appeals to donors.

Pinkwashing

Another issue that kept coming up amid online discussions yesterday was Komen's relationship with corporate America, most saliently those corporations which profit from wrapping their their products in pink, or pink ribbons, and pushing the notion that when one buys them, one will be helping breast cancer research, or aiding breast cancer victims, or otherwise doing something good and honorable. Lest you doubt the effectiveness of this as a marketing approach, take a look at Komen's own list of "corporate partners", the length of which is impressive.

Is all this actually funding breast cancer research and financial assistance for low-income women in need of care? In a 2006 article in Time, Stacie Stukin looked into the matter:

Donating by making a purchase is a "really seductive" idea, says Samantha King, a professor of health studies at Queens University in Kingston, Ont., and the author of a new book, Pink Ribbons, Inc.: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy (University of Minnesota; 157 pages). "People often say to me, 'I'm really busy, and this is something small I can do.' But the problem is, it's really not clear what kind of positive effect it's having overall."

Some of the pink-ribbon promotions don't make much sense financially. Take Yoplait's offer to donate 10¢ to the Komen Foundation for every pink yogurt lid mailed to the company from September through December. Komen would get a bigger donation if consumers simply donated the 39¢ it costs to buy each stamp, not to mention the fact that donors would have to polish off 100 yogurts to come up with a $10 contribution--a formula that surely enriches Yoplait more than the breast-cancer cause.

Big Pharma's tentacles

The matter can be summed up thus: Hadassah Lieberman, "Global Ambassador" at Komen and former lobbyist for Big Pharma.

By way of explanation: Senator Joe Lieberman--who famously fought having any kind of "public option" or Medicare for All during the healthcare debate--is married to a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry and at the same time actively worked to push legislation that would benefit these giant multinational conglomerates:

Among Hill & Knowlton’s clients when Mrs. Lieberman signed on with the firm last year was GlaxoSmithKline, the huge British-based drug company that makes vaccines along with many other drugs. As I noted in July, Sen. Lieberman introduced a bill in April 2005 (the month after his wife joined Hill & Knowlton) that would award billions of dollars in new “incentives” to companies like GlaxoSmithKline to persuade them to make more new vaccines. Under the legislation, known as Bioshield II, the cost to consumers and governments would be astronomical, but for Lieberman and his Republican cosponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., the results would be worth every penny. Using the war on terror as their ideological backdrop, the pharma-friendly senators sought to win patent extensions on products that have nothing to do with preparations against terrorist attack or natural disaster.

Three-time breast cancer survivor Jane Hamsher of the blog FireDogLake pointed out the incredible conflicts of interest at hand when she wrote to Nancy Brinker, the organization's founder (and the sister of the late Susan G. Komen), in 2009:

It has come to my attention via an article by Joe Conason in Salon that Hadassah Lieberman – wife of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) – is currently a compensated “Global Ambassador” for Susan G. Komen for the Cure. It is widely known, however, that not only has Senator Lieberman been an instrument of obstruction to the kind of health care reform advocated by Susan G. Komen for the Cure, but that Mrs. Lieberman is also a former lobbyist worked for the lobbying firm APCO Associates, which represents the interests of the same major, private health insurance and pharmaceutical companies which Mr. Lieberman seeks to protect.

Mrs. Lieberman’s relationship with Susan G. Komen for the Cure is unethical and misleading. Important and often very personal donations made to Susan G. Komen for the Cure to benefit the sick and dying are essentially undermining their intended use. And as Hadassah travels the globe under the banner of Susan G. Komen for the cure, decrying the inadequacies of our health care system and the desperate need to reform it, her husband is at home to kill the reform efforts we so desperately need.

Unethical and underhanded tactics, say runners and donors

Komen's page on the charity review site Great Nonprofits offers a great deal of telling commentary. Bearing in mind that these are self-reported experiences that are by definition not from documented sources, take a look at what people who've participated in the Run for the Cure--or simply donated--have to say (the following comments are all dated weeks or months prior to the defunding of Planned Parenthood):


As a scientist myself I've taken the time to look into the research the Komen foundation funds and nearly all of it goes to the interest of pharmaceutical companies. The continue to help companies fund research to patent new chemotheraputic drugs while ignoring any serious competition such as the Burzynski clinic. At the same time the CEO owns stock in pharmaceutical companies she's giving grants to, and these companies always get to patent the drug the Komen foundation helps them research. If the Komen foundation cared about curing cancer they wouldn't let for profit companies keep patents.
---

I am glad to read that others are concerned about this organization as well. Here's what I have to say. A best friend of mine contacted the SGK foundation and she's a Breast Cancer Survivor, when her young daughter (25 yrs old) who is under insured had signs of early BC, she contacted SGK and requested some financial assistance for her daughter to get it checked out. The SGK representative told her that "they don't help people in her zip code." I was furious when I heard this and called the foundation myself to see what they would say when I gave them a similar situation, they too told me that they didn't help people in my zip code. So I emailed the SGK foundation myself and requested to find out how much money had been raised in my area (Zip code) through the walks and other events. They refused to comment and i messaged them back asking them: "How can you take money out of this community through your run/walk events and NOT give money back to help people in this area?" I never got a response back and I refuse to support this cause because of it.
---
Shocked!! Organization took in $135 Million in 2010, provided grants for research, education & screening of $74 Million and a paltry $10,000 (yes, only ten thousand dollars) in grants to individuals in the USA. The remaining millions were used to pay contractors (other expenses line items) and employees (many in the high 6 figure income bracket). Shameful, absolutely shameful.
---
I signed up to do the SGK 3-day walk for the cure. I was so proud to be able to walk for my mother-in-law who lost her battle with breast cancer on april 4, 2009. I sent the "donate for me" letters which stated, "help her get to her financial goal." I emphasize "GOAL." I soon realized that I was required to bring in $2,300! Apparently this little nugget is buried in the terms and conditions and forever after noted as a "GOAL." I cannot bring in that kind of money. My friends and family donated and I got to $300, but I don't have the time to campaign the way they want you to. I was appalled to also find out that if I didn't make it to $2,300 by the day of the event, I could give them a credit card for the remainder or just go home. They neither refund any money collected by me or my registration - which is not tax deductible. I found this outrageous and deceptive. They keep my money - received by my family to support me in this event. I basically signed up to be an unpaid fundraiser. I would think any donation and the willingness to walk 60 miles to promote awareness would be thanked....not with SGK. I'm not good enough for their charity. I agree with a former reviewer - I think they lost their way. They have raised nearly 2 billion dollars and there is no cure.

What now?

In light of everything I've learned about Susan G. Komen for the Cure in the past day, I am going to do a couple of things, and I hope readers will join me.

First, I will make every effort to avoid buying products from companies who partner with Komen, mainly by avoiding the pink ribbons, yes, but also by seeking alternatives to the ones Komen itself lists as "corporate partners".

Second, I will continue to write to my Congressmen and urge them to lead the way toward implementing Medicare For All, in order that no woman in America will ever again find herself unable to afford basic healthcare, including cancer screenings.

And last--and most importantly--when my family and I next make our charitable donations, we will be giving directly to Planned Parenthood, which continues to empower women, especially those unable to afford medical insurance, by providing them with access to critical healthcare, cancer screenings, and reproductive medicine.

Also at MOMocrats.