Tag Archives: Susan G. Komen Foundation

War Games: Real and Imagined

The NV Rural Democratic Caucus picked up the sounds of Neo-Cons on the March. The Stove-Pipers seem desperate to have another WAR, with someone, anyone, please…”We’ll only look strong if we’re bombing someone.” Perpetual Warmonger John Bolton thinks it’s in our best interest to get directly involved in a conflict between Iran and Israel (assuming, of course, that Israel and Iran want to get into an armed conflict). [MMFA] Yesterday Faux News got its knickers in a twist over U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Rice because of insufficient bellicosity. [Crooks & Liars]

The interesting thing is, that in my experience, the same people who vociferously call for military intervention also tend to be the ones with the least actual military experience. The veterans in my circle of acquaintance are concerned that the U.S intervene directly only after all diplomatic efforts have failed, only after the aims of the operation are clear and precise, and only after due diligence has been performed in which the costs and the casualties are stringently contrasted to the rewards and objectives. They truly understand that war is not a board game like Risk, or an exciting version of a  video game — real people with real families are placed in real peril.

We use the term “war” too often. Perhaps part of the problem evidenced by the free and easy way the word is tossed around is that we use it too often in inappropriate ways.  For example, the “war on drugs” merely describes a system of law enforcement operations designed to reduce domestic consumption and to arrest, try, and convict those apprehended selling and using controlled substances.  For all the governmental agency coordination involved, this isn’t and never has been a real war.

President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war on poverty, but that too was simply a description of coordinated domestic government programs designed to ameliorate the most severe effects of poverty, such as illness, homelessness, and hunger. People die in wars, the concept of Medicare was that life would be prolonged.  However, the war motif makes issues sound every so much more grand.  Thus now we have all manner of little “wars.”

Right wing pundits created a “War On Christmas.” They creatively imagined that retailers wishing their customers “happy holidays” was part of an overarching  effort to secularize the Christmas season.  Not that this “war” stopped the American public from spending some $976 million on real trees, and another $530 million on artificial trees in 2010. [NCTA]  Nor does this “war” tend to depress church attendance during the holiday season (Advent to Christmas).  In fact, for most churches the question is how to get the holiday Christians to show up for more than just the Christmas and Easter services. [TCP]  The real battle appears to be how to get the knaves in the naves when it isn’t Christmas. The artificial fight is about something else entirely.  Sometimes it almost appears as a form of “badge earning” in order to create a specific cultural identity. Consider the following:

“The reason the War on Christmas is being fought isn’t to suppress the private practice of Christianity (at least not yet!). Rather, the intent is to destroy the link between America’s majority religion and its culture. […] Americans have a right to the American holiday of Christmas. It is part of who we are… even though some of us are not Christian. It’s time for us to stand up and reclaim it from the small majority who are trying to take it away from us!” [TWOC]

If this proposition seems not to make any sense, it’s probably because it doesn’t. However, it does hint at the mind-set that informs other culture wars. The author assumes (1) the validity of the “Christian America” perspective, and further assumes (2) that to admit diversity is to sanction tolerance. Indeed, those who do practice intolerance may be justified in believing themselves to be under attack.

How alarming it must be for the intolerant to be told they must allow a mosque or synagogue in their community?  We’ve seen a truly and remarkably preposterous “battle” over a mosque at Ground Zero, which wasn’t a mosque and wasn’t at Ground Zero. [USnews] That newspapers and magazines reported that it wasn’t a mosque and it wasn’t at Ground Zero was perceived in some quarters as a “typical liberal media” attack. These would be the quarters in which any information which does not support and confirm one’s personal perspectives is unwelcome. But, there are other “battles” to be fought.

As of March 2011 at least a dozen state legislatures saw the introduction of legislation to “ban” Sharia law.  One piece of legislation was remarkably fact-free: “A Tennessee bill, S.B. 1028, explicitly defined Sharia law as a “legal-political-military doctrine and system.” It cited the “threat of terrorism” and concern about “the replacement of America’s constitutional republic” by Islamic law.” [EthicsDaily] [ThinkProgress]  Members of the Jewish faith are rightly concerned by this xenophobic atmosphere, and noticed its implications for Judaism:

“If the state legislative initiatives targeting sharia are successful, they would gut a central tenet of American Jewish religious communal life: The ability under U.S. law to resolve differences according to halachah, or Jewish religious law.” More specifically: “A number of recent beit  din arbitrations that were taken by litigants to civil courts — on whether a batch of etrogim met kosher standards; on whether a teacher at a yeshiva was rightfully dismissed; and on the ownership of Torah scrolls — would have no standing under the proposed laws.” [JTA]

Halachah, it would seem, would be just another casualty of the Culture Wars. (In case you were wondering, “etrogim” is a citrus fruit native to Israel.) It is not that the Culture Warriors don’t have some real opposition.

Anti-choice advocates convinced AT&T to cut its charitable contributions to Planned Parenthood back in 1990. Had the Susan G. Komen Foundation leadership paid attention to what happened next they may not have been so quick to announce their decision to cut their funding for the women’s health organization.  [TPM]  All that the SGK Foundation will say for now is that it may consider funding women’s health programs related to Planned Parenthood, but this is no guarantee the organization will actually reverse its recent stand in the Culture Warrior battles. The “war” moves on to contraception.

The Obama Administration announced that health insurance companies would have to cover expenses for contraceptive prescriptions in employer paid health plans.  Catholic bishops moved to earn their badges, but may have missed the target.

This particular battle in the Culture War seems not to have all that many willing participants. Those who are willing to serve in this artificial conflict appear to be among the 26.3% of the population who constitute the white evangelical category.  While their numbers nationwide may be low, their grip on the Republican Party is solid, and this is problematic:

“What’s an even bigger shame is that Republican leaders see the aforementioned poll numbers and continue to court white evangelicals, which means the most bigoted among that pious population have no incentive to change their discriminatory ways, and our nation’s ideals, including inclusion, diversity and religious freedom, will continue to be eroded for years to come.” [D&T]

There’s another iceberg in the water as well.  By assuming the defensive positions sought by those white evangelicals who are motivated by intolerance, fearful of change, and cling to a notion of “white nationalism.” the Party is in peril of shrinking its adherents to a core which is antithetical to the very mainstream it purports to represent.

Meanwhile, American continues to be part of the continent to which Estevanico of Azamor came in 1527, becoming one of the first Muslims to visit Florida, and the first mosque was probably built by Albanian immigrant followers of Islam in Maine in 1915. The first synagogue was dedicated before the Declaration of Independence was written. [Touro] And, the self same country in which Confederate General William Dorsey Pender, advised in 1862 that his wife was unexpectedly pregnant, told her the fetus was ‘God’s will, but sent along a packet of pills the company surgeon was certain would “relieve her.” [London]

There are wars and there are games. The two should not be confused.

Advertisements

Comments Off on War Games: Real and Imagined

Filed under conservatism, Foreign Policy, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Morning Roundup

Well now, THAT was underwhelming.  The Gleaner crunches numbers for the ballyhooed Caucus. The Nevada Progressive takes a closer look.  The Sin City Siren adds 2 shiny cents.  The Nevada GOP is looking at the possibility we might want a primary instead of the caucus format. [LV Sun] Here are some unsolicited handy hints: (1) There will be larger turnouts for non-incumbent races; (2) If larger turnouts are expected — phone it in — literally.  The Democrats have this down, call it in, then mail the ballots.  There may be issues, but the process doesn’t leave the press hanging, and jokes don’t make the rounds about “the score of the Super Bowl will be available before the caucus results are counted.”  Just sayin’.

Nevada won’t be joining the proposed settlement of foreclosure issues with major banks and bank holding companies.  Nevada Secretary of State Catherine Cortez Masto has 38 questions about the deal, “My office is continuing to review the intricate draft settlement terms and advocating for improvements to address Nevada’s needs,” Masto said. “Receipt of important state specific information is necessary to make our determination and my office is still in discussions regarding that information.” [RenoGJ] The deal would preclude the continuation of civil actions, but would NOT halt criminal prosecutions for fraudulent or deceptive practices.

Were I handing out more political advice to the GOP, I don’t think I’d advise that the House Republicans take another swipe at privatizing Medicare.  However, that certainly looks like what they are doing. [TPMDC]

Wondering what all the Saul Alinsky flap is all about? Salon explains.  A left leaning community action advocate, who had precious little patience with elected officials of any stripe, has morphed into the Bogey Man for the radical right.  The truth is a bit more dull. However, that won’t stop the radical right from attempting to make the case that President Obama is a “native born foreign Muslim Christian radical socialist communist fascist-rightist leftist community organizer with ties to Alinsky, Reverend Wright, and anyone else who sounds scary.”  Meanwhile, The Birthers Are Back.

Then there are the moans and wails of the Wall Street Bankers: “Self-pitying bankers lament a bygone era of fat bonuses and easy money” as described in Salon.com.

We might also wonder why the Romney campaign has pocketed SuperPac money from Melaleuca (Idaho) which has a history of run ins with regulators?  [MotherJones] And, has hired Larry McCarthy (Willie Horton Ad) as an adviser? [New Yorker]  And, this line from Rolling Stone: “How the GOP race became a showdown between a walking OCD diagnosis and a flatulent serial adulterer.”

The commentary on the actions of the Susan G. Komen Foundation don’t seem to be over quite yet. Slate asks, “What does the SGK actually do?”  Julian Brookes looks over the U-Turn.  Note: The U-Turn wasn’t quite complete as the organization says “there remains some doubt about the restoration of Planned Parenthood funding…”   There’s another, more precise explanation herein:

“Komen says only that it will fund “existing grants”—that means, it will fund grants it has already formally agreed to make. Well, it is legally required to do that, isn’t it? It can’t rescind a grant on the basis of a rule made after the grant was offered. The original banning always referred to the future, and as to that, Komen says only that PP can apply for funding, not that Komen will continue to make grants to it as it has for many years. Nothing prevents Komen from altering its criteria in ways designed to exclude PP—for example, as Brinker suggested to Mitchell, deciding against funding breast care outside of mammogram centers.”

 

Comments Off on Morning Roundup

Filed under 2012 election, financial regulation, Foreclosures, Medicare, Nevada politics