Spokane7
68°
February 5, 2012 in Opinion
Smart Bombs: Politics propelled pink slips
Imagine a wife seeking a divorce because somebody who hates her husband accuses him of cheating. She doesn’t pursue the truth. She rebuffs his attempts to meet with her. But she wants to make it clear to everyone else that she isn’t passing judgment and hopes they can remain friends. Oh, and could you kindly refrain from guessing her motives?
That, in a nutshell, is the story the Susan G. Komen for the Cure tried to peddle in explaining its pink-slipping of Planned Parenthood over unproven allegations of misused federal funds to perform abortions. Planned Parenthood uses Komen grants for breast cancer screening.
“We want to maintain a positive relationship with them,” beleaguered Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said on Wednesday.
If so, wouldn’t the outcome of the investigation matter? Couldn’t consider that, said Aun, because Komen had just developed new guidelines for when it cuts off grants. Under those, all it took was a single investigation by local, state or federal authorities into any matter.
This “tightening of standards” became chum for the politically motivated fishing expedition of U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who had opened an inquiry into Planned Parenthood last September. Congress had yet to hold a single hearing on the issue, but Stearns could declare victory after simply requesting documents. Call it the Race for a Cure to an association that had bugged anti-abortion groups for years.
After the predictable uproar, Komen reversed itself in one of the most colossal public-relations meltdowns in history. Thirty years of good will torched in a couple of days. Now both sides of the abortion debate are angry with an organization dedicated to battling breast cancer.
The Komen organization is made up of survivors, but it would be a miracle if its leaders can withstand this.
Point of conception. Pro-life activists suggest that Planned Parenthood introduced abortion into the issue of breast cancer, and that it’s the pressure tactics of that organization that forced Susan G. Komen for the Cure to back off its defunding decision. That’s disingenuous on two counts.
First, Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg says he has three inside-the-foundation sources who say that the new guidelines were drawn up for the express purpose of dumping Planned Parenthood. The Associated Press has a source that concurs, saying long-standing pressure from pro-life groups provided the impetus.
Second, it’s pro-life activists who continually push the unproven belief that abortion raises the risk of breast cancer. Perhaps “hope” is a better term than “belief,” because despite pronouncements from the National Cancer Institute that this connection has yet to be established, activists continue to promote the possibility.
One would think that if this were about cancer, they would be relieved.
Where’s the outrage? I don’t recall the ballot measure that affirmed heterosexual marriages in Washington state. Who actually decided that?
Don’t worry. Be happy. This Mitt Romney comment to CNN on Wednesday drew a lot of attention:
“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
So as long as the heart of America becomes very poor or very rich, he won’t have anyone to worry about. Life must be carefree in those countries that don’t have a pesky middle class.
Bad bargain. Spokane Mayor David Condon has decided to forgo participating in the city’s pension plan or accepting his full salary this year. Hope his budgeting acumen is better than his personal finance skills.
But seriously, politicians, take your full pay. Playing politics with this solves nothing. It just makes it more difficult to determine what the paycheck should be.
Associate Editor Gary Crooks can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or (509) 459-5026. Follow him on Twitter @GaryCrooks.
Smart Bombs: Greatest generation? Not us 
WillyPeter on February 05 at 4:33 a.m.
If the owners of the Spokesman are serious about improving the quality of their paper, and want to save money in the process, get rid of the writer of this rambling, nonsensical, dissociated editorial.
Truthhurts on February 05 at 5:49 a.m.
Komen was going to be replaced within months. Large donors were preparing to essentially create a parallel organization that within months to a couple of years would have been the justifiable end of Komen.
I would like to be a Republican again, but while the fascistic “religious right” is trying to influence our politics and our public institutions, only the Democrats are protecting liberty (and they do it anemically).
Planned Parenthood is an extremely cost-effective delivery system for breast cancer screening in America, serving women who otherwise would be unable to afford, or reach that screening.
Komen would have deserved to vanish from the earth if it had not come to its senses on this issue.
Diana on February 05 at 6:33 a.m.
Please note that the only protest that worked on the Komen Board was that raised by their corporate sponsors, who have already invested millions upon millions in their 2012 merchandising tie-ins to the Komen races.
Or do you think Estee Lauder, YoPlait, KFC, Whirlpool and Komen’s other sponsors did not realize how much they would lose in dollars and in positive PR if Komen did not apologize? This had nothing to do with women’s health, but with corporate money.
oldarmy on February 05 at 7:05 a.m.
My 13 year old daughter writes for her school paper and could have written a more lucid article than Mr Crook. Now about the content: I simply believe that the only way Komen can combat these issues is to SHUT DOWN IT’S SERVICES COMPLETELY! If People are going to be such WINERS about how this Corp spends its money saving lives,, then quit spending it!! Donate it ALL to research. Let the religious elite destroy thousands of lives….all in the name of JESUS..just because the money for breast cancer testing FOR THE POOR is funneled through the most effective delivery system in the USA…that they dont agree with. Maybe you JESUS FREEKS can pray breast cancer away in the USA!!
nottored on February 05 at 7:18 a.m.
Old Army - better get some fiber in your breakfast today
Jeffrey_Grey on February 05 at 7:31 a.m.
Diana,
I think that several Komen chapters’ open defiance of the proposed ban had something to do with it too.
Civil war within its own ranks isn’t healthy for a charity that depends upon public image for its success.
Diana on February 05 at 8:18 a.m.
Agree, Jeff, but the bottom line is the bottom line.
Benaround on February 05 at 8:45 a.m.
Crook’s weekly goal of generating hate and division never alters.
Every week usually 1/2 of America disgusts and offends him
and he tries to get the other 1/2 to increase their hatred. The
Catholic Church is providing abortions through their taxes and
soon through their health insurance carriers. The Democrats
have pretty much succeeded in forcing their values onto the
Nation’s religions. Collectivism is winning…Crooks should be
happy unless creating hate is the real objective of his rants.
richard on February 05 at 8:45 a.m.
• Gary Crooks … please read Kathleen Parker!
Parker identified the real issue at stake in the Komen matter … freedom of conscience and religious liberty.
In the minds of statist “progressives”, the ends always justify the means. In this instance, if Komen - which provides monies for breast cancer services - does not want its monies going for abortion procedures, then they should be forced to adapt to the “coercion and intimidation (of) the mobs and tyrants” who feel entitled to force it to do the will of the progressives.
The ends are typically used by the so-called “progressives” to justify their worldview of collectivism.
Crooks should be embarrassed by his total and complete allegiance to the play book of the extreme leftists. Freedom and liberty by private individuals and private organizations be damned!
misjustice on February 05 at 10:11 a.m.
“…all it took was a single investigation by local, state or federal authorities into any matter.”
And yet Komen has not pulled its grant funding from Penn State; the target of a criminal investigation involving child rape. Komen’s explanation of WHY they initially pulled the grants from PP doesn’t pass the smell test…
PP is being “investigated” by a Republican’t politically motivated Congressional committee while Penn State is being investigated by State and Federal Law Officials. The PP investigation is not criminal, the Penn State investigation is.
Had Komen pulled funding from Penn State also, I’d be more inclined to believe their reason for pulling it from PP; they didn’t, so I am left to conclude that their move against PP was purely political.
And by playing politics, Komen helped PP to garner over 3 MILLION dollars of contributions in a 72 hour period. Talk about the law of unintended consequences!
misjustice on February 05 at 10:20 a.m.
With this lil’ stunt, Komen seriously sullied their brand…I never “bought” into the pink ribbon product branding campaign tripe and I’m sure now others won’t either.
“A lot of pink ribbon promotions come with fine print: In the best cases, you’re giving a company money that could have been given directly to a breast cancer charity. In the worst cases, you’re purchasing products — such as alcohol- or chemical-laden cosmetics — that could actually increase your breast cancer risk.”
http://www.everydayhealth.com/breast-cancer-pictures/7-controversial-pink-products-for-breast-cancer-awareness.aspx#/slide-2
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 05 at 10:31 a.m.
^ Wow, thanks for that link. When I saw someone refer in print to Komen as “Pink Handguns, Inc.,” I thought they were exaggerating…
johnclarke on February 05 at 10:37 a.m.
richard on February 05 at 8:45 a.m.
The ends are typically used by the so-called “progressives” to justify their worldview of collectivism.
Oh great, code words from the great Ayn Rand.
Diana on February 05 at 10:38 a.m.
I’m not sure why Komen lied about their reasoning.
Oh, yeah, I am. I was kidding.
Did they pull their cash out of Bank of America? No?
Diana on February 05 at 10:50 a.m.
Second rate Russian novelist and drug addict Ayn Rand did a great job of leading the charge against moochers and parasites.
That is, until she was eligible for those socialist programs, Social Security and Medicare. The lure of collectivism just was too hard for her to pass up, I suppose.
johnclarke on February 05 at 11:07 a.m.
I know, right. What kills me is people still follow her fictional claptrap like it really means something. I guess Alan Greenspan learned that lesson the hard way….along with everyone else.
Diana on February 05 at 11:22 a.m.
@misjustice: Pink is the new yellow.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 05 at 1:40 p.m.
What gets me is when regressives band together to exert pressure on behalf of their agenda, it’s red-blooded American-ism at its finest. It’s We, The People speaking!! (At least to hear them tell it, anyway.)
On the other hand, when progressives band together to exert pressure on behalf of their agenda, it’s a bunch of socialists and degenerates trying to destroy everything good this country stands for. (At least according to those same regressives.)
Ah… perspective and the double standard!
gmorton on February 05 at 1:42 p.m.
Diana wrote,
“That is, until she was eligible for those socialist programs, Social Security and Medicare. The lure of collectivism just was too hard for her to pass up, I suppose.”
If she paid into them, she was entitled to collect from them. Recovering money stolen from you does not constitute and endorsement of theft.
gmorton on February 05 at 1:44 p.m.
“an,” not “and.”
gmorton on February 05 at 1:49 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“Ah… perspective and the double standard!”
That does not constitute a double-standard, Jeffrey. It’s a single standard applied to different theories of society, per which one of those theories is wrong and the other right.
misjustice on February 05 at 1:51 p.m.
Hey, Kids! I found this interesting…
George W. Bush Pal Ari Fleischer Secretly Involved in Komen Strategy on Planned Parenthood
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/775124/george_w._bush_pal_ari_fleischer_secretly_involved_in_komen_strategy_on_planned_parenthood/#paragraph2
No wonder Komen’s strateegery was flawed!
; )
Diana on February 05 at 2:20 p.m.
GMorton wrote: “Recovering money stolen from you does not constitute and endorsement of theft.”
That’s it. From now on, I won’t refer to “paying my taxes”, I’ll say it’s “money stolen from me.”
GMorton, even you must know how ridiculous you sound.
johnclarke on February 05 at 4:04 p.m.
gmorton on February 05 at 1:42 p.m.
If she paid into them, she was entitled to collect from them. Recovering money stolen from you does not constitute and endorsement of theft.
Diana, I don’t think he does know. We are talking about people that think the work of fiction known as Atlas Shrugged is like…real ? What is frightens me is there are now two of them…on this thread. Oh my.
The point is Gmorton, the russian drug addict was a hypocrite.
gmorton on February 05 at 6:43 p.m.
Diana wrote,
“That’s it. From now on, I won’t refer to ‘paying my taxes’, I’ll say it’s ‘money stolen from me.’”
Good! At least you’ll be right about half the time – for the half of those taxes you pay for services you do not want and from which you do not benefit.
A jump to .500 would represent a big improvement in your batting average, Diana.
:-)
gmorton on February 05 at 6:46 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“The point is Gmorton, the russian drug addict was a hypocrite.”
Sorry, John. Recovering money stolen from you does not constitute hypocrisy either. So you have no “point.”
johnclarke on February 05 at 7:09 p.m.
Actually, I do - once and for all the money is not “stolen”.
You have a choice available to you, if you don’t want to pay taxes in the United States. Just leave. Go find the mythical Libertarian country and live there, hypocrite.
gmorton on February 05 at 7:38 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
” … once and for all the money is not ‘stolen’”.
Sorry, John, but unless you are relying on your own dictionary, it is. “To steal” means to take the property of another, by force or stealth, without right.” There is no exception when the thief is the gummint.
“Just leave.”
That’s the equivalent of, “If you don’t wanna be raped or mugged, stay off the streets at night.”
No, John. We do not run away from the rapists and muggers. We deal with them.
johnclarke on February 05 at 8:12 p.m.
Oh my, do we have to go down this road again? You are clearly an angry fringe type gmorton. No one is forcing you to live here. If you don’t like taxes, then go ahead. “Deal” with it. Are you going to lead an uprising? Stop paying your taxes? “Deal” with the gumint, those “rapists and muggers”?
You worry me pal. Like those nutbags in Montana that end up in compounds made of trailers. Well, we’ve all seen how well that works out. Good luck.
garyc on February 05 at 8:23 p.m.
Could you detail how this is being dealt with? Rand’s books of fiction didn’t seem to do the trick.
Pretending to be a Republican isn’t working for the Libertarian presidential candidate And, just who is the Libertarian candidate who will end theft in our time?
Phil Hart battles this. Is that looking hopeful?
It does seem ill-advised to continue hanging out in Mugger’s Alley with the hope that they’ll leave you alone this time. This is especially true when you know the cops will show up and say nothing illegal occurred.
Oldarmy,
Next one is ALL CAPS. Just FOR YOU!
garyc on February 05 at 8:34 p.m.
First “theft”, now “mobs” and tyrants,” Good thing this is hyperbole or i might have to find a better country.
Are suggesting they are lying when they said this had nothing to do with abortion? If so, we’re in agreement.
I am pro-choice on the matter. The choice is still theirs. There is no law that says they have to give to PP. That is as it should be.
There is no law saying folks can’t criticize that decision. There is no law that says the critics can’t be criticized. So what’s the problem?
woamike on February 05 at 8:36 p.m.
@JC,
So, do you believe all government expenditures are *legitimate*? In other words, are constitutional? Or, do you just figure if the government does it, it’s OK? Or, if you personally approve of it, it’s OK?
Notice, I said LEGITIMATE, I’m not talking about whether or not you agree or not with a given expenditure. There is a huge difference. For instance you or I may not *like* a particular bona-fide national defense expenditure, but that does not make that expenditure *illegitimate*. So, like it or not, it’s legit.
On the other hand, you or others may like direct welfare payments / subsidies in their various forms. Just because you like them or personally approve of them, does not make them legitimate. Neither does a majority of citizens approving of them make the expenditures legitimate or constitutional.
When the government levys taxes for legitimate expenditures, whether we like/approve of them or not, it is obviously not “stealing”. On the other hand, when the government taxes for un- or extra-constitutional things, it is in fact THEFT. That the government does it, with your or other’s blessing, does not change this fact. It is little different from getting robbed at gun-point.
When someone like myself or gmorton points this out and your response is “if you don’t like it, leave”, it only exposes your ignorance and immaturity.
It’s really a simple concept: the legitimacy of government spending is based on constitionality, NOT whether or not you or I like it or not, or even on majority rule.
gmorton on February 05 at 9:00 p.m.
garyc wrote,
“Could you detail how this is being dealt with?”
* Flight of capital offshore;
* Tax evasion;
* “Off-the-books” economic activity (the “underground economy”);
* Black markets;
* Civil disobedience;
* Lawsuits;
… among other means.
Succinct response, woamike.
MatthewRoot on February 06 at 9:35 a.m.
So, Medicare and Social Security benefits are legitimate because Ayn Rand received those benefits (that’s 43 percent of all federal spending).
The Dept. of Defense spending is authorized by the constitution, so there is another 19 percent.
Interest on the Debt is another 6 percent (it is a contract, I want my T-bill interest).
The VA, Dept. of Transportation , and Dept. of Justice, and State Dept. are 5.6 percent (gotta take care of wounded vets, repair roads, have law enforcement and diplomacy).
Add in a few more government functions like Homeland Security, Interior (somebody has to manage federal lands), and the Corps of Engineers, and that is about 75 percent of the budget.
All of those government functions that libertarians despise so much (feeding and housing the poor, providing medical care to sick children, public education, unemployment) make up about one-quarter of spending. All of those programs have been legally enacted. Yes, federal spending and entitlements must be reduced to eventually reach a balanced budget, but levying taxes is not theft.
Libertarians might not like the present social contract, but that does not mean it is illegitimate. I think that is johnclarke’s point. So, go ahead and file lawsuits and engage in real illegitimate activity if you want to break the law (black markets, tax evasion) Until the Supreme rules otherwise, the present social contract is legitimate.
And that is enough of this dorm room discussion for me.
woamike on February 06 at 10:22 a.m.
@MRoot, you said:
“So, Medicare and Social Security benefits are legitimate because Ayn Rand received those benefits (that’s 43 percent of all federal spending).”
Neither of those programs are legit (constitutional). in any case, their legitimacy would certainly not be based on whether or not Rand (or anyone else) received benefits from them. You seem to be under the illusion that if the congress passes something, it’s legit as long as the supremes don’t over turn it. I guess you too consider the supremes infallible.
BTW, what’s with the Rand obsession with all you guys?
Do tell us more of this “present social contract” that you claim is legitimate (constitutional). Is this the thingy where you think it’s OK for the government to reach into my wallet, take some of my hard earned $ and give it to someone else they deem to be more “worthy” of the rewards of my labor??
MatthewRoot on February 06 at 11:14 a.m.
woa mike, Let us know the outcome of your lawsuit when it reaches the Supreme Court. Maybe you could hire P. Hart help argue your case.
gmorton on February 06 at 11:33 a.m.
MatthewRoot wrote,
“So, Medicare and Social Security benefits are legitimate because Ayn Rand received those benefits (that’s 43 percent of all federal spending).”
Er, no. They are not “legitimate” at all. What *is* legitimate is for someone who has been forced to pay for them to claim benefits from them.
“Until the Supreme rules otherwise, the present social contract is legitimate.”
You’re confusing “legitimate” with “legal,” Matthew. Those are distinct concepts.
And what is this “social contract” of which you speak? I seem to have lost my copy, as well as any memory of having signed such a thing. Could you perhaps post your copy?
gmorton on February 06 at 11:42 a.m.
I hope your political philosophy and theory of political legitimacy does not rest too heavily on such an egregious myth as the “social contract,” Matthew.
Arch_Druid on February 12 at 8:23 p.m.
What is the difference between “progressive” statists and religious statists? Maybe the “progressives” looked in their bible and discovered, what you do even unto the least of these, you do even unto me. @Richard.
And the religious statists? They skipped those biblical passages that were admonitions from various apostles, including the teachings of Christ in their all out heck bent desire to obtain secular power.
Seems this “collectivist” argument is one of projection. Those really engaging in collectivism (religious organizations, etc.) then project their own failures onto others.
As for GMorton, and others who have this rather interesting view about “theft” when it comes to taxes, or what is legitimate or not about what gvt supplies in services, etc. Would you guys like to know that a standing army wasn’t exactly acceptable at the formation of the Republic, but some decades later, Congress approved of a formal military. You need to check out your history books a little better before you demonstrate a far greater ignorance than you claim about Gary Crooks.