Komen Backs Off and We’re Supposed to Forgive and Forget?

English: Prevention Park, is the largest Plann...

Image via Wikipedia

Komen Apologizes; Pledges To Continue Planned Parenthood Grants | Crooks and Liars

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.

Komen Apologizes; Pledges To Continue Planned Parenthood Grants | Crooks and Liars

Wow, I should be impressed except I’m not.

The organization has already provided solid evidence that women’s health is not their first concern. They have only reversed their decision based on politics. And be clear, they backed down on this particular issue but it is only a temporary setback for their anti-Planned Parenthood stance and their move toward anti-abortion politics.

Think of all the different ways through other grants and political pressure that they can influence the future of women’s health in this country and in the world. They gave up on this point under political pressure but can it be more obvious what the future stance of the organization is going to be? This is not victory for women’s health or a defeat for their organization. It is a truce to allow them to regroup and fight another day.

I want you to read the brief excerpt above. Notice the phrase “disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.” I can drive an ocean liner through that exception. How many district attorneys are there in the United States – just a few thousand? So, all we to do to disqualify Planned Parenthood again is to have one of these district attorney conduct a “criminal” investigation. Now you might object that doesn’t consider the word, “conclusive,” which of course means a conviction. Except that it doesn’t. If they had wanted a conviction to be necessary to disqualify an organization, they would have used that word. I’ll tell you what the word, conclusive means in that sentence – anything they want it to.

From now on they will act to defund Planned Parenthood and services to poor women and we know they will because they have already by their actions demonstrated their intent. If they intended to really reverse the policy decisions of the last few days, there would be firings and changes in personnel at the top of the organization. Do you see any?

One of the most disturbing elements of this whole affair is how stupid the Susan G. Komen Foundation leadership believes the public are. They cut off Planned Parenthood on the most spurious of grounds (a Congressional investigation) against a background of Republican donations and the hiring of a stalwart in the anti-abortion movement. Then they tell us it was non-political. Look at the phrasing of their press release . They claim they were only fulfilling their “fiduciary” duty by cutting off the organization. First, I think they used the word merely because it was multisyllabic and sounded legal. Second, I have to wonder if it was their fiduciary duty to cut off Planned Parenthood what happened between yesterday and today that nullified that duty? Fiduciary responsibilities are not optional, they are binding.

I still believe that giving money to the Susan G. Komen Foundation is a questionable decision based on the events of the last few days. I believe if you look at the evidence you will come to the same conclusion.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Work of Luke H. Lee

Example of supply chain

Image via Wikipedia

Keeping a web site and maintaining it can be a real pain but one of the great pleasures of it, is that you get to provide support to your friends to get the word out about their ideas. Here is a piece from my blogging friend, Luke H. Lee.

The article is significantly longer than this small excerpt and you probably need to see the diagrams for full understanding. So please read the whole thing.

James Pilant

Realizing a better world

If a public information-based supply chain infrastructure system is developed and fully implemented in the real market, the existing efficiency-oriented market process would be changed to a more effectiveness-oriented market process, which is more suitable for the modern information market. This would significantly contribute to the improvement of employment on the whole. The self-generation capability of the market would improve as well.

Luke Ho-Hyung Lee

With the influence of this new, more effectiveness-oriented supply chain process, the existing competition by size would change into competition by quality and service. The existing efficiency-oriented mass production process and mass-market consumption model would also be altered into a more effectiveness-oriented, diversified, or individualized production and consumption system. Owing to these changes, local employment conditions would improve considerably, and the business environment for middle- and small-sized companies and for the general service industry would improve significantly. Moreover, companies that off-shored and outsourced to lower labor cost countries would come back to the domestic arena

Realizing a better world

Enhanced by Zemanta

Cry Me A Freaking River! Says Karen Handel

Daily Kos: Komen Foundation official deletes evidence of anti-choice bias from Twitter

The Susan G. Komen Foundation, and its senior vice president of public policy, Karen Handel, who is “staunchly and unequivocally pro-life,” have been getting beat up pretty bad for the blatantly political decision to stop funding cancer screen and prevention at Planned Parenthood.

It appears that yesterday, Handel signed on to the “cry me a freaking river” sentiment on Twitter that anti-choicers are gleefully expressing because nothing makes them happier than women dying of cancer if it means sticking it to the nation’s biggest provider of health care to women.

Daily Kos: Komen Foundation official deletes evidence of anti-choice bias from Twitter

Here’s the tweet –

tweet

Apparently cutting women off from health care shouldn’t evoke emotions. I disagree. The tragedy of underserved populations unable to get breast exams and other care is a tragedy.

Since the organization has serious qualms about actually pursuing it goals of preventing breast cancer, it is only logical that giving to the organization is a poor move if that is your concern.

I further suggest that wearing a pink ribbon is a sign of support for an organization that has lost its way, and lacks the courage to act in support of women’s rights.

Perhaps, a different color ribbon signifying actual committment?

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Stop Giving to the Susan G. Komen Foundation!

Česky: Logo Facebooku English: Facebook logo E...
Image via Wikipedia

Since the Foundation canceled a grant program of $700,000 a year specifically designed to pay for underserved populations breast exams, we can only assume they have decided that political action against Planned Parenthood is much more important than fighting breast cancer. Since the organization has now defunded thousands of breast exams for poor women, we can only assume that they have only a limited interest in fighting disease.

Join the Facebook Group to De-Fund SGKF

Enhanced by Zemanta

I’ve Been Gone for a While.

I have not written for ten days. I have felt a little burned out. Over the last two years I have written 1,602 posts. Sometimes you need to stop for a while. I felt I was becoming formulaic and boring. Certainly I was boring me.

One day in class, I noticed that I often present original ideas that I have developed from my extensive reading but I never seem to talk about my thinking. In my blogging, I have often simply responded to the thoughts of others. Response is not enough. I believe a writer, particularly a writer concerned with social justice, must of necessity present ideas about what can and should be done. It’s not enough to stand against things, you must also be for things.

Another thing I do at school is carry out my plan to remake the world. I preach endlessly the importance of not accepting my ideas as revealed truth but for my students to develop their own thinking processes so that they can consider and weigh facts to make good decisions based on their own experiences, observations and judgment. My faith in their ability to change themselves and then the world is not always apparent to readers of my blog, and it should be.

Sometimes the weight of the power of the 1 percent leads me to conclude in despair that nothing can be done. That is wrong. We have seen this kind of history with the power of the Robber Barons in the 1890’s and the early years of the 20th century. Their power, their money, their influence in the government were all reduced by the energy and faith of social movements drive by the need for change. That is happening again with Occupy Wall Street.

So, I return to writing the blog with some new ideas, a changed focus and a dedication to faith that change is possible and, in fact, inevitable.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Justice Scalia Trivializes “Citizens United”

Please read the article below for more explanation of Justice Scalia’s statement.

Scalia would lead us to believe that the massive influx of corporate dollars allowed into the system by the Supreme Court Decision, Citizens United, will simply be neutralized by people turning off the television.

I had to take a minute to absorb the full implications of his statement, in fact, at first, I thought I had misread the article but after re-reading it, it still said the same thing.

Let me explore this, I can probably come up with a few hundred dollars to give in a campaign cycle. However, a corporation can give hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions of dollars. But it will all be “even steven” if people turn off the television sets?

Won’t the hundreds of millions of dollars also buy billboards, internet pop-ups, endless stacks of mailings and radio ads?

And since televisions watching is believed to be addicting with millions of Americans watching on average 4-6 hours a night, how likely is it that millions of them will turn off the set and go to bed? – or read a book? – or take up ceramics?

The Supreme Court Justice who helped turn the United States into one of the most oligarchic nations in the world with one decision, is trying to tell me that my concerns are trivial and there is really nothing to worry about.

No, the decision seriously damaged the prospect of a government for the people by the people. His sad attempt at trivialization is not surprising. His contempt for democracy was demonstrated by the decision making George Bush, the President of the United States.

I do not believe representative government is in anyway important to him.

That his decision making descends to such pitiful generalizations is not a sign of a Supreme Court that deserves our respect. It is a sign of a Supreme Court that no longer relies on any thing but class interest to make its decisions. It’s time for something new.

James Pilant

photograph of the justices, cropped to show Ju...

Image via Wikipedia

Justice Scalia On Unlimited Political Ads: Turn Off The TV

U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia has a simple solution for people who don’t like all the political advertisements unleashed by the court’s decision two years ago that ended limits on corporate contributions in political campaigns – change the channel or turn off the TV.

Scalia was asked about the decision during a presentation before the South Carolina Bar on Saturday, exactly two years after the court handed down the 5-4 decision in the case that led to the rise of Super PACs. They are outside groups affiliated with candidates that can take in unlimited contributions as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the candidate.

“I don’t care who is doing the speech – the more the merrier,” Scalia said. “People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.”

Justice Scalia On Unlimited Political Ads: Turn Off The TV

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Banking Industry Gives Obama the Squeeze

President Barack Obama addresses reporters abo...

Image via Wikipedia

Big banks have picked their candidate, and it’s Romney – from McClatchy

“We’ve seen a massive shift from Obama to the Republican candidates on the part of the financial industry,” said Carmen Balber of Consumer Watchdog, a California nonprofit that advocates for taxpayers and consumers. “Obviously, part of that has to do with a competitive primary. But we’ve definitely seen the financial services industry publicly chastise the president for going after financial reform.”

Big banks have picked their candidate, and it’s Romney | McClatchy

Isn’t this sweet? Barack Obama bails out the banks, protects them from prosecution for their crimes, installs banking industry figures in virtually every possible position in the government, pretended that the mortgage crisis wasn’t happening and was careful to give only the most measured criticism of the financial industry and the 1% – and his reward is massive contributions to this likely opponent.

For all of his compromise, for all of his favoritism, for all of his abandonment of the goals of justice and accountability, the President got less than nothing.

This was hardly unpredictable. The dramatic reactions of the wealthy investment to class to Obama’s mile criticism, the weak legislation of Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and the Occupy Wall Street movement demonstrated that Wall Street’s sense of entitlement and worthiness is fragile at the very least.

Only the most slavish devotion, only agreement on every point and only an acceptance of the financial industry as worthy, doing God’s Work, is adequate for the malefactors of great wealth.

The President should have realized this.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Using Film in the Classroom, Air Crash Investigation: Cleared for Disaster

English: Figure 3 of the NTSB report on the US...

Image via Wikipedia

This particular episode is very interesting and, in particular, very useful for classroom discussion. We have an apparent case of air traffic controller incompetence leading to a runway collision. But is it as simple as that?

Once the program establishes that the controller made a mistake, it discusses understaffing, poor procedures, difficulty viewing the runway and a tempermental ground radar system that wasn’t working at the time.

This is a perfect film to show when discussing where does personal responsibility begin and end.

I recommend it for that purpose. I would be using it in business law but it is a good film to use when discussing ethics.

James Pilant

Here is an article about the crash. It’s a little technical but I recommend you go to the web site and read the whole thing. My thanks to AirDisaster.com!

AirDisaster.Com: Special Report: USAir Flight 1493

As the Skywest Metro awaited its takeoff clearance, USAir 1493 touched down near the threshold of runway 24L and shortly thereafter slammed into 5569. Both aircraft skidded down the runway, the Metro crushed beneath the 737’s fuselage. The wreckage came to rest on the far side of the taxiway against an empty building. All 12 in the Skywest aircraft were killed as were 21 people in the USAir 737, including the Captain.

AirDisaster.Com: Special Report: USAir Flight 1493

Enhanced by Zemanta

President Claims to be Concerned with the Mortgage Crisis

The following article title and brief selection is by Zandar from the web site, Zandar Versus the Stupid.

I very much want you to visit the site and read the article in full. If at all possible explore the web site and look at other essays.

My commentary is below the article excerpt.

Turn On The Lights, Watch The Roaches Scatter Part 84

A White House official said Obama has taken the housing crisis seriously since the start of his term and will look to augment the effort in the months ahead.

“From day one the President has worked to stabilize the housing market and help responsible homeowners stay in their homes, including through refinancing efforts, foreclosure prevention programs and programs directed at the hardest hit states,” said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage.

“The President will continue to expand on these efforts and look at new ways to help homeowners, just as he has over the past few months with new programs to help underwater homeowners and expanding forbearance so more unemployed homeowners can stay in their homes,” she said.

I wish that were true. I wish the mortgage crisis had been an important concern for the White House but it has not been a concern and is unlikely to become one.

When the President was first elected he had large majorities in both the House and Senate. He could have made mortgage foreclosures a priority instead he created TARP, a plan which did not allow for mortgages to be reduced in line with reduced home values but only extended the time for payment. The banks used this program as a club to expedite foreclosure. They told clients to skip payments for three months to qualify for the program, then foreclosed on them telling them they had decided they were ineligible. The government didn’t even keep records of what the program was doing for the first year.

When the robo-signing scandals began, the federal government did nothing. When the scandal expanded to impugn the record keeping and practices of several large banks, the federal government did nothing.

And now the federal government attempts to cut a sweetheart deal with the industry so that they can evade any legal responsibility for their acts while, in theory, bringing some minimal aid to homeowners.

This administration has always been far more a servant of the banks than a servant of the people. I want as many State Attorney Generals as possible to no longer cooperate with the administration and pursue their own negotiations with the financial industry. That will mean that justice at least has a chance of being served.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Acting in China Offers Political Insights

English: Margaret Thatcher, former UK PM. Fran...

Image via Wikipedia

Sometimes I find writing so striking and delightful that I want to share it with you.

This is from Salon’s web site and is written by Melissa Rayworth. She wants to convey the political insights she gained while acting in China.

Please, please go to the link at the bottom of the page and read the whole thing.

Sometimes, here in the U.S. we get that the impression that the Chinese want or are becoming like us. I don’t think so. Read and see what you think.

James Pilant

Playing Margaret Thatcher in China – The Iron Lady –  from Salon.com

Finally, they began to realize I wasn’t bluffing. Furious, the director summoned an assistant, who appeared with a bulging black leather case. Unzipping it, he pulled out thick wads of Chinese currency and counted out the cash. With my pay sitting in my backpack under those same ill-fitting shoes I wore tumbling down the steps at the Great Hall, I played my last scene as Margaret Thatcher.

Between takes, no one spoke. I’d proven them right about me – and about her. I had forced their director to negotiate with me, just like the Iron Lady had forced Deng. Face had been lost. My hope that playing this role might humanize Thatcher for Chinese audiences had failed. I had fallen down those steps for nothing.

Playing Margaret Thatcher in China – The Iron Lady – Salon.com

Enhanced by Zemanta