It's the Politics, Stupid

“Is it possible for a woman’s health organization to stay out of the abortion issue and help all women?” asked Mr. Raffaelli, the Komen board member. “I don’t know the answer to that yet. What we were doing before was angering the right-to-life crowd. Then, with our decision in December, we upset the pro-choice crowd. And now we’re going to make the right-to-life crowd mad all over again. How do we stop doing that?”
                          "Cancer Group Backs Down on Cutting Off Planned Parenthood"

How? Simple, really.

In the last week or so, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation (an incredibly awkward name, by the way, but that's a problem for another day) has come under fire for a decision, made late last year, to discontinue grants for Planned Parenthood.  This was in response to pressure from pro-lifers, who objected to Komen's funding of a group that provides abortion services.  When Komen's decision went public, the backlash was immediate and, given the reach of the internet, pretty much ubiquitous.  Hundreds of thousands of messages on social networks blasted Komen, and Komen yesterday backed down, saying that Planned Parenthood could again apply for grants.

Komen board member John Raffaelli suspects that, now that Komen has given in to pressure from pro-choice advocates, his group will now face pressure again from pro-lifers.  He may be right.  He can take solace, though, in the fact that surveys consistently show a large majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-choice; so if you must alienate someone, it makes more sense to alienate the anti-choicers.

I suspect, though, that Komen got into trouble not so much because of the group's actions but because of the way these actions were taken.  After all, the funding Komen provides Planned Parenthood amounts to a small part of the Komen budget, and Planned Parenthood actually increased its revenues in the wake of Komen's decision (admittedly due in large part to the outrage generated by the Komen decision).  What grates on people's nerves was the nakedly political nature of Komen's actions.  Komen decided to de-fund Planned Parenthood in a very quiet way, mainly in an effort to avoid the very reactions that the decision provoked.  If a group is going to act politically, it can hardly be shocked when the body politic responds.

What would have happened if the folks at Komen had made a public statement saying that its board was simply opposed on principle to supporting an organization that provides abortions?  Would there have been a backlash?  Sure.  Would Komen have lost supporters?  Yes. But it would not have lost as many supporters as it did.  This is because its actions would have been seen as principled--wrongheaded, perhaps, but principled.  Instead, their actions appeared--quite rightly--as nothing more than a cynical political ploy to avoid losing money.

The general public is not so intolerant as some of these groups seem to expect.  We can appreciate an organization that acts on principle, even if we disagree with the principles on which it acts.  What we cannot tolerate is hypocrisy.

(Digression: The direct inspiration for Komen's decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood was a congressional witch hunt launched by an extreme right-wing congressman, Cliff Stearns, to investigate whether Planned Parenthood inappropriately used federal funds to provide abortions (all indications are that it hasn't).  If Komen was, directly or not, responding to this investigation--as it actually claims it was doing--all Komen had to do was make an announcement that its policy was not to award grants to organizations under congressional invesitgation--and that if people were outraged, they should take out their ire on Stearns.EOD)

Best. Day. Ever.

I never win anything.  In gym class, I sometimes had to run races.  Invariably, of the 32 kids in the class, I would come in 46th.  My school held a raffle last year, with dozens of prizes available.  I got an ear infection.

So I wasn't expecting much this morning when, on my way to work, I heard the radio DJ announce that they were going to give away front-row seats to a Bruce Springsteen concert.  To win, one would need to answer questions about Bruce Springsteen and the Super Bowl, it being Super Bowl weekend (Go Giants!).  The "qualifying question": What was the Roman numeral of the Super Bowl at which Bruce played the halftime show?

As I was sitting in the drive-thru lane of my local Moby-Dick-themed coffee emporium, I figured what the hell, and dialed the station.  I didn't even expect to get through.  But the phone actually rang!  And then I actually heard the actual DJ's voice on the actual other end of the actual phone actual.  I had gotten through.

So, first, did I know the Roman numeral of the Super Bowl when Springsteen played halftime?  Luckily, they mentioned that it was the 2009 Super Bowl, so, knowing that this weekend's game is XLVI, I was able to figure out that III years ago was XLIII.  The DJ's were thoroughly impressed.  I was in the game!

The next question: What tire company sponsored Bruce's halftime show?

". . .?"

Are you shitting me?  I mean, I'm a football fan and a Springsteen fan.  I am NOT a tire fan.  Well, OK, I mean, when it comes to propelling my car smoothly over paved surfaces, I DO prefer tires to just about anything else, but COME ON!  I realized, however, that protest would be fruitless and took a guess. . . ."Uh, Firestone?"

"Oh, no!"

Damn!

"Well, we'll give you another chance.  Here's a hint: It starts with 'B.'"

"V?!?"

"No, 'B.'"

"Oh, well, in that case, Bridgestone?"

"Bridgestone is correct!  OK, now for the win, name the four songs Bruce Springsteen played at the halftime show?"  Now, in fairness, I was pretty much expecting this question, and I was pretty unsure that I could answer it.  I remember specifically that he played--presumably out of a sense of obligation to his record label--"Working on a Dream," off what was then his new album.  Rather disapoointing, really.  Beyond that, I had somewhat hazy memories.  I was pretty sure about one, at least:

"Born to Run?"

"That's right."

OK.  Two down, two to go.  Well, let's see, Super Bowl. . .Sports. .  .

"Glory Days?"

"'Glory Days' is correct.  One more for the win!"

Now I was in trouble.  I was about to say "Born in the USA," but somehow, that didn't seem right. . . Too depressing and political. . . ."Hungry Heart," maybe?  Definitely a crowd-pleaser, but I had no memory of that particular song.  Of course, it was III years ago. . . . I decided to punt.

"I don't suppose I could get a hint?"

"Um. . . OK. . . a big rave-up.  All about Clarence Clemons."

"TENTH AVENUE FREEZE-OUT!!!!"

"You got it!"

I got it.  I got it?  I GOT IT!

I don't exactly know how to handle this turn of events.  I think I'm going to go cower under my blankets this weekend.  The universe is going to want to realign itself, so whatever happens to me next, I have a feeling it won't be pretty.

Happy Groundhog Day, Anyway

Get this: Those hacks at ABC News would have us believe that Punsutawney Phil and his fellow groundhogs cannot actually predict the weather!

Yeah, right!

Next thing you know, they'll try to convince us that Jews don't control the world's financial system!

Word of the Day: Eviscerate

"But the fight for Florida was largely between Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich. And Mr. Romney overwhelmed and eviscerated Mr. Gingrich."
--"Romney Wins Big in Florida Primary, Regaining Momentum"

"With his resounding victory over Newt Gingrich in Florida on Tuesday, Mitt Romney showed a worried Republican base a side of himself that it has both longed for and feared that he lacked: the agile political street fighter, willing to mock, scold and ultimately eviscerate his opponent."
--"The Political Costs of a Nasty Fight"

Two different front-page articles by two different teams of reporters, both employing the same metaphor to describe Mitt Romney's victory over Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary.  No one can object to journalists punching up their reportage with a well-chosen word, or, as in this case, a metaphorical flourish.  But let's face it: A word like 'eviscerate'--an SAT word if ever there was one--draws attention to itself, and when used twice within a comparatively small space of printed type, begins to tumble toward the realm of cliche.

Literally, of course, Romney did not eviscerate--remove the entrails from or disembowel--the former Speaker of the House.  Would that it were so.  Both articles use the word metaphorically.  But the overabundance of eviscerations on the front page of The New York Times causes readers to consider the metaphorical sense of this word--usually implying a removal of "vital or essential parts"--to such an extent that they question its appropriateness. Did Mitt Romney remove some vital parts from Newt Gingrich?  If so, which ones?  Certainly not his overinflated sense of his own importance, or his gall, or his head.  If anything was removed from Gingrich, it hardly seems like anything he'll truly miss.

I don't blame the reporters.  This was an editorial oversight.  The English language abounds in words to describe what Romney did to Gingrich: crush, thrash, dominate, humiliate, embarrass, or just plain defeat spring to mind immediately.  Colorful language is fun, but it must be used carefully.

Election Prediction

I imagine the polls have closed in Florida (or are about to).  I have not seen the results, but I am going to make a prediction that in today's Republican primary, the rich, somewhat douche-y white guy will clobber the less-rich, but ever-so-much more douche-y white guy.

Thanks, ACOS, for the inspiration behind today's post.  And you have the sympathies of Solipsist  Nation for having lived through the last couple of weeks of Republican campaigning.

Separation Anxiety

"Many Catholic colleges decline to prescribe or cover birth control, citing religious reasons. Now they are under pressure to change. This month the Obama administration, citing the medical case for birth control, made a politically charged decision that the new health care law requires insurance plans at Catholic institutions to cover birth control without co-payments for employees, and that may be extended to students. But Catholic organizations are resisting the rule, saying it would force them to violate their beliefs and finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings."
                                --"Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges"

If Catholic colleges want to cling to outmoded doctrine, that's their prerogative. But these colleges' administrations seem perfectly willing to overlook the offending behavior, as long as they themselves suffer no financial penalties for it.  Personally I think Catholic universities like Georgetown, Fordham, Notre Dame, or the ever-expanding roster of Marymounts have every right to require their student bodies to uphold Catholic doctrine as a condition of admission.  These schools could require students to sign pledges that they will, under penalty of expulsion, refrain from pre-/extra-marital sex or that, if engaging in church-sanctioned sex, they will remain apart from the "culture of death" that uses artificial means of birth control.  But they don't impose such requirements.  Not surprising, really, since, according to the same article quoted above, 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptives.  These universities' admissions officers would suffer a collective stroke were such a policy implemented.

Let's talk hypocrisy, though.  Forget that 98% of Catholic women.  A probably greater percentage of Catholic colleges and universities enjoy considerable financial largesse from the very government whose policies they now resist.  If Fordham University and its ilk don't want to offer birth control as part of their health plans, that's fine.  No one should force them to violate their institutional consciences.  They also, therefore, should forego any federal funding for other programs.  No more Pell grants, no more federal research awards, etc.  Religious institutions should realize that they cannot invoke separation of church and state only when it suits their convenience.

Schindler's Wolves

Went to see "The Grey" today.  SOS likes Liam Neeson, and I'm more or less open to anything when it comes to movies.  It wasn't bad for what it was, but I'm not exactly sure what it was.  The story follows a small group of Alaskan oil refinery workers who survive a plane crash and then struggle to make their way back to civilization while battling the landscape, the elements, and a pack of animatronic wolves.  How the animatronic wolves found their way to the arctic is never made clear, but just go with it.

Liam Neeson plays a professional wolf-hunter who emerges as the leader of the group. I've decided that Liam Neeson is one of those good-not-great actors that's fine if the material is good, but who really can't carry a movie.  I will always appreciate him for playing Oskar Schindler, but, let's face it, while he certainly looked the part, if a better actor had played Schindler, it's possible that the unknown Ralph Fiennes wouldn't have walked away with the movie. 

Back to "The Grey": The movie is based on a short story called "Ghost Walker," by Ian Mackenzie Jeffers, and without having read it, I can say confidently that the story was better.  A good old fashioned story of man vs. wild--especially when "wild" features highly charismatic fauna like wolves--sounds like a decent premise for an action movie, this film is seriously deficient in action.  Instead, long stretches of screentime are devoted to character development.  Indeed, this is essentially a character study marketed as an adventure.  And even once I had accepted the nature of this film, I found myself wanting to scream at the actors to pick up their cues.  Note to director Joe Carnahan: Dialogue delivered at a slow, profound pace doesn't always come across as profound--often, it just comes across as slow.