Month: February 2012

A cathedral in Galt’s Gulch

by digby

According to Rick Santorum, gay marriage doesn’t benefit society, one assumes because the two people cannot biologically create children together. It seems that I’m going to have to get a divorce. All people my age are. In fact, no longer “beneficial” we should probably just walk out into the desert and let nature take its course. What would Jesus think about that?

In Rick Santorum’s dystopia, “privileges” can only be extended to those who are beneficial to society — wealthy job creators and married straight people with children. The more children the more beneficial you are. Sort of a Catholic Atlas Shrugged — which would make Ayn Rand very angry. I’m not sure about the Pope.

.

Humans slaughtering humans. Again. Pointlessly.

by David Atkins

Horrifying:

The U.N. Security Council could vote Saturday on a draft resolution that would pressure the government to stop a sustained, bloody crackdown on dissidents.

But hours before Saturday morning’s meeting in New York, reports of carnage at the hands of the Syrian regime surged.

Government forces “committed one of the most horrific massacres since the beginning of the uprising in Syria,” killing at least 260 civilians over the past day, the opposition Syrian National Council said Saturday.

“During the attack, residential buildings and homes were randomly and heavily bombed,” the group said.

Some Syrian residents say the international community is sitting idle as bodies mount in the streets.
“The U.N. isn’t doing anything about it. The Arab League isn’t doing anything about it. … While they’re having their little discussion, people are sitting here and they’re dying,” said an activist identified as Danny.

He said the assault on Homs started after a few dozen members of the Syrian army defected and fled to a part of the city.

“The civilians went down to welcome the (defectors) to thank them for their bravery,” he said. “When the army found out, it started randomly bombarding with tank shells, mortar bombs. It’s like they’re killing animals.”

Homs resident Abu Abdo Alhomsy described continuous bombing and snipers perched throughout the city.

“There are so many people on the streets that are wounded and they need help, but we can’t reach them to help them,” he said. They’re ready to kills us all. They have no problem with doing that. Please, we call (on) the international community for help.”

But the difficulty in passing a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria could drag on.

Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council and a trade partner with Syria, has hinted it is not satisfied with the latest draft resolution.

Russia is dragging its feet on the Syria resolution, ostensibly because Moscow feels it was duped into authorizing greater military force in Libya than it had intended to allow. Moscow is very, very concerned about the potential for intervention in Syria.

It turns out there’s a very good reason for that:

Recent Russian arms sales to Syria are worth $4 billion, including fighter jets and advanced missiles. Russian business investments in Syria encompassing infrastructure, energy and tourism amount to nearly $20 billion. A natural gas processing plant about 200 kilometers east of Homs is being constructed by a Russian engineering company, Stroytransgaz.

But financial investment carries only so much weight in the face of international criticism. The United States, for example, had billions invested in the Mubarak regime in Egypt, yet halted its support as protests mounted.

Russia has refused to follow suit in Syria, demonstrating a willingness to absorb criticism. For the Kremlin, it appears more important to demonstrate a confident and sovereign foreign policy in defiance of the West…

The Syrian regime also provides Russia with a key strategic asset: a deep warm-water port at Tartus. The lack of such a port has plagued Russia’s global ambitions for centuries and is said to be one reason behind its invasion of Afghanistan.

The importance of the port may not be as great as it was in Soviet times, but unfettered access to the high seas remains a driving force for Russian strategic thinking as Russia’s main ports are either ice-locked for much of the year or land-locked by straits controlled by other powers.

Western Europe had oil interests in Libya, so suddenly the West found it possible to conduct a successful operation against Qaddafi. The West has little in the way of oil interests in Syria, so Assad has gotten away with merrily killing his people at will. But no sooner does the West realize the untenable nature of its position, peep up and consider sending a harshly worded letter, than Russian energy and shipping interests do their best to put a lid on it. After all, what’s a few thousand dead civilians to Gazprom?

Meanwhile, a war without end or hope continues apace in Afghanistan–a war that, if it ever had a chance of succeeding at all in routing out the Taliban, rebuilding the country, emancipating its women and actually improving the lives of Afghans so utterly destroyed after the Soviet invasion and shortsighted U.S. funding of anti-Soviet mujahideen, was lost the moment the Bush Administration and its lapdogs in the Democratic Party and the Press decided to abandon it in favor of an insane, murderous, illegal grab at the oil under Saddam’s Iraq. An invasion that should have led to the lifelong incarceration of the American heads of state responsible for it, if there were any justice in this world.

Of course, the quagmire in Afghanistan is made impossible for U.S. or Afghan interests largely because of the continuous ultra-right-wing Koran-thumping reinforcements coming in from Pakistan, which itself is locked in a pointless nuclear conflict with India over religion and control of water-rich Kashmir.

Don’t forget also that Israel is threatening again to bomb Iran, which is still reeling in retaliation against the West due to the CIA coup against its democratically elected leader Mossadegh. That coup was undertaken against the popular socialist head of state to ensure that BP would get unfettered access to that sweet, sweet crude lest it find it necessary to bathe the Gulf of Mexico in oil due to dangerous drilling there, instead. Now the hyper-religious conservative government of Iran is making wild threats about mining the Strait of Hormuz even as American ships rescue their fishermen, and only few years ago successfully stole an election and destroyed a hopeful incipient uprising by liberal youth fed up with its dictatorial control. All of which will be used as a great excuse if a Republican walks into the White House in 2012, in order to start an armed conflict with Iran by 2016–conflict that, at its core, will once again be more about oil and religion than anything resembling human rights.

At some point, various groups of human beings waving different colored flags and shouting to different gods–as though the colors of the flags and the names of the gods will matter to anyone but historians but a few centuries hence–will have to move past slaughtering each other for resources and to prove that their version of the unprovable is the real one. It’s pathetic and disgusting. The only way that is going to happen is a system of international law with credibility of enforcement.

Until then, we’ll be destined to watch this sorry merry-go-round of death and mutilation for generations to come.

.

QOTD

[R]ushing to blame white Mormons for their opposition to same-sex marriage – as opposed to African-American and Latino Californians, both of which groups voted to pass Proposition 8- counts as racism; after all, there was no earthly reason to do it except that one group had a conveniently low average melanin count in their skin.

This is a new one on me. I have heard the anger at Mormon involvement in Prop 8 called bigoted against religion, but racist? Bit of a stretch. It’s really simple: they got blamed because they spent many, many millions of dollars on a dishonest campaign to pass Prop 8, most of it from out of state. Blaming them for that that could be called class warfare too, but that wouldn’t make it true.

From Adam Serwer:

“Is anyone really that surprised that oil companies and private equity billionaires are enthusiastic about beating president Obama?” the Democratic operative said.

Here’s my question though. I’m fairly sure that President Obama will have enough money to compete. But Rove’s outfit, American Crossroads isn’t playing in the presidential. it’s all about congress. What are the Democrats planning to do about that?

Komen backs off, dishonestly

by David Atkins

Well, this was quick:

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation announced Friday that it would revise a new policy that barred the organization from funding Planned Parenthood, a move that had thrust the breast cancer foundation into a national controversy.

Komen apologized “to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”

The foundation said that Planned Parenthood would now be eligible to apply for grants. It did not, however, address other reasons Komen has cited for why it might choose not to approve such grants.

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” a Friday statement said. “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.”

“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” the statement continues.

The statement left some ambiguity, however, because it did not mention a second reason Komen has given for ending Planned Parenthood’s funding: that the group did not provide direct mammogram services but instead referred patients to other providers.

In some ways, this statements raises even more questions than it answers. (Actually, I have all the answers, anyway.)

Will they continue to fund Planned Parenthood? (Probably.) If so, were their stories about defunding PP because it doesn’t provide direct mammogram services always insincere excuses? (Probably yes.) If they intend to deny funding for organizations wrapped up in criminal rather than political investigations, does that mean Penn State University will lose their funding? (Maybe yes, to save face.) And why did Penn State not lose its funding in the first place? (Because it was never about the cloud of investigation, but about capitulating to right-wing pressure.)

Most of all? It’s about money. Komen knows that most women don’t just care about the upper half of their bodies: they care about their whole bodies, and about being seen as people, not just gestational vessels. They know that after throwing women under the bus, other organizations that actually care about the whole woman will step up to the plate to take money for breast cancer research, awareness and treatment.

In fact, it may already be too late. At the very least, no one should consider giving Komen a single dime until Karen Handel is fired or resigns in disgrace. And even then, the organization needs to answer some very serious questions about why she was hired in the first place, and what their real mission is.

.

A Real Republican

By tristero

Eyes roll, and I’m accused of being close-minded whenever I opine that yes, indeed, there are two sides to every issue, but modern day Republican candidates are on neither. They are so off the wall and so unspeakably corrupt that anyone truly serious about governance either laughs at them or reacts with revulsion.

While ably eviscerating Mitt Romney’s character, Michael Tomasky reminds us that once, there actually were sane Republicans running for high elective office. Not that I think George Romney would have been worth voting for, but compared to Goldwater, compared to Nixon, compared to Ford, compared to Reagan, compared to the two Bushes, compared to the current pathetic crop of lying creeps, Romney the Elder was a downright decent man. Even if he was far removed from my politics, he represented, as Tomasky portrays him, a genuine, and serious, second side.

Yes, of course, it would be very nice if there was a genuinely viable liberal candidate to vote for instead of just one more hypercautious centrist. But it would also be very nice if there was a conservative candidate on the ballot instead of these thuggish right wing clowns with hyperactive hairdos.

Nonprofit bubble

by digby

The Komen Foundation Vice President in charge of ruining their brand, Karen Handel, is really an awful person in every way. Aravosis found this interview with Handel when she was running for GA governor less than two years ago:

KH: I’ve been very clear. And you know, as a Christian, marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not think that gay relationships are — they are not what God intended. And that’s just my viewpoint on it. Others might disagree with that. But I would also hope that if you look at what is happening in our state, we’ve got issues we need to be focused on in Georgia . We have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. And it’s something that I supported wholeheartedly. We have that, and let’s get dealing with the other issues that we also need to deal with in Georgia. And the press can help with that. (Laughs).

Q: Frequently, folks in the Legislature kind of threaten to — there are always rumblings in the Legislature that they may outlaw gay adoptions. You’re against gay adoption.

KH: I am against gay adoption. But remember — I mean, if there is legislation on that, certainly I will follow that and look at it. But in the end, ultimately courts are going to be the ones to have to make the decision on that and it’s always in the best interests of the child. Do I think that gay parents is in the best interest of the child? No. But we do have our court system that deals with many and most of those issues.

Q: Would you favor outlawing gay adoptions?

KH: Yeah, I would consider that, absolutely.

Q: Do you know any gay couples with children?

KH: Not that I’m aware of.

Q: So you think gay couples are less qualified to function as parents than straight couples?

KH: I think that for a child to be in a household — in a family in a household with a situation where the parents are not married, as in one man and one woman, is not the best household for a child.

Q: Is it better or worse than a single parent household?

KH: Doug, I’m really trying to be straightforward with you but I’m not going to debate all the nuances. I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s what I believe, and I don’t know what more you would like me to add to that.

Q: I guess I want to know why you think gay parents aren’t as legitimate as heterosexual parents.

KH: Because I don’t.

She’s an extreme social conservative, which is the norm in Republican politics. But why in the world would a non-partisan organization hire someone like this? The answer is, they wouldn’t. Komen isn’t a non-partisan organization and they hired her for a reason.

It’s too early to tell if Komen will end up defunding Planned Parenthood entirely. They say they are still eligible to apply for grants, which means nothing. Anyone can apply for anything. It doesn’t mean they will be accepted. But it’s clear that Komen is reeling over this, regardless. And that the blowback came as a huge surprise. Apparently, they thought that the only people who care about these things are the forced pregnancy zealots — which means they have been living in that right wing bubble. If nothing else this whole flap has probably awakened a few people to the fact that there are plenty of Americans who think this right wing social agenda is cracked.

Update: Right on time, here comes the hissy fit. Evidently the preachers and anti-choice crusaders attacking Planned Parenthood for years, including instigating trumped up congressional investigations, is a-ok, but an outcry against Komen capitulating to them is “gangsterism.” God, what a bunch of whining wimps.

DIY Activism contest

by digby

Just finished up my West Coast Tour, posting 120+ signs between Seattle and San Diego and looking forward to doing it again. This time I’d like to focus on climate change and am asking your help finding the right slogans. Slogans should be short, smart, fit well into a rectangle and look good in traffic. Winner gets a thousand dollars and has their message displayed alongside freeways up and down the west coast. Second and third place winners, if they’re good enough for the freeways, will receive 500 and 250 dollars respectively and have their messages posted as well. Original work is preferred but not mandatory, and apart from the right to post them publicly, I will make no claim to winning entries as intellectual property. Send entries to freewayblogger – at – yahoo – dot – com. Deadline for submissions is March 15th.

Freeway blogger
.

Body parts

by digby

This is an excellent piece by Jill LePore in the New Yorker on the Komen issue. It’s all good, but this is just an excellent observation:

In American politics, women’s bodies are not bodies, but parts. People like to talk about some parts more than others. Embryos and fetuses are the most charged subject in American political discourse. Saying the word “cervix” was the beginning of Rick Perry’s end. In politics, breasts are easier to talk about. I first understood this a few years ago, when I was offered, at an otherwise very ordinary restaurant, a cupcake frosted to look like a breast, with a nipple made of piped pink icing. It was called a “breast-cancer cupcake,” and proceeds went to the Race for the Cure.

I don’t know if some people can understand how dehumanizing this is. Obviously, there are a fair number of both sexes who don’t see it that way. But to me, this gets to the real gist of the issue, one I’ve only vaguely been able to grapple with by using hyperbolic phrases like “gestation vessel.” But it’s more than abortion or childbirth, although the desire to control that vital human function lies at the heart of this. It’s about reducing women to their various body parts. “You get to control this bit, but we’ll control that bit, and we like this part but don’t want to talk about that part and … are you complaining again?”

The obsession with fetuses and uteruses and birth control, the fetishization of breasts (in all ways, not just Komen’s breast cancer branding) and the ongoing double standards in political and public spaces like this commonly forgets the human being who happens to own those body parts. I think that’s what women commonly feel — and one reason many of us are so adamant about this. It’s not just about a discrete set of issues. It’s about women being treated as fully human.

.

The souls of Republican folk, part 2

by David Atkins

Dave Weigel reports from Nevada, speaking to a local Republican caucus partcipant:

“This is going to sound rough,” he said. “But if you’re a Democrat, you are my enemy. Democrats piss me off. They’ve gotten extremely socialistic.” What did that mean? “Every time they get in, they raise taxes. They screw things up. I’ve got a jeep I’ve had for ten years; I pay $100 a year on the license plate. We just got a new Dodge; $600 to license it. You pay your money, they pass it on to the Mexicans, the colored people. Free education, handouts, all of that.” Kent was 67, and dated his disdain for socialism back to Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. “We’ve got maybe two Democrats in Virginia City. One of them owns the second-biggest bar. I won’t set a foot in the door.

I’m sure that if Democrats drop the nasty tribalism and capitulate on our values enough by allowing cuts to Medicare and outlawing of abortion, we can come to reasonable bipartisan compromise with these folks.

Surely there’s something we can do to win this man’s vote or at least soften his ire. And I’m sure that whatever it is, it will totally be worth it in the spirit of post-partisan unity.

.