Video: Donkey either really likes or really hates the violin

I love the story that goes with it:

I had no idea how our donkey would react beforehand. Please excuse my playing. I was too distracted, LOL!

I bought Donkeyotee when he was a starving 4 and 1/2 month old colt who had been errantly weaned at 2 and 1/2 months of age. My vet didn't think he would make it through that first night. He was skin and bones, his ears drooped down, and he was too weak to take more than a single shuffling step on his own. Reported the previous owner to animal control and they investigated.

He is 7 years old now and very healthy. He makes me smile every day with his antics. You never know what can happen when you help an animal in need.

Read the rest of this post...

Malaria much deadlier than previously thought

Most have known how serious the problem was, but this new research shows that the problem is even worse than previously believed. The Guardian:

Malaria kills twice as many people every year as formerly believed, taking 1.2 million lives and causing the deaths not only of babies but also older children and adults, according to research that overturns decades of assumptions about one of the world's most lethal diseases. The findings from the research, published on Friday, which has reanalysed 30 years of data on the disease using new techniques, will force a rethink of the huge global effort that has been under way to eliminate malaria. That ambition now looks highly unlikely by the UN target date of 2015. It also raises urgent questions about the future of the troubled Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria, which has provided the money for most of the tools to combat the disease in Africa, such as insecticide-impregnated bed nets and new drugs. The fund is in financial crisis and has had to cancel its next grant-making round.

Read the rest of this post...

NY Times study: SEC soft on Wall Street crime

In the Romney Rule America, law and order only applies to the 99%. If you wear an expensive suit and work on Wall Street, all is forgiven.

The problem with the SEC - like much of Washington - is that the job is only a stepping stone to a more profitable career in private industry. Taking a hard line against Wall Street is a job prospect killer for those working at the SEC. Think of the SEC as the minor league baseball training ground for the big leagues. The massive insertion of cash into political campaigns is widely discussed but the revolving door is just as damaging, if not worse.

Until these cozy relationships are ended, there's no hope of ever holding Wall Street accountable. Political class insiders can spin it any way they like, but this stinks of corruption. The justice system for the 1% is in desperate need of reform. NY Times:

An analysis by The New York Times of S.E.C. investigations over the last decade found nearly 350 instances where the agency has given big Wall Street institutions and other financial companies a pass on those or other sanctions. Those instances also include waivers permitting firms to underwrite certain stock and bond sales and manage mutual fund portfolios.

JPMorganChase, for example, has settled six fraud cases in the last 13 years, including one with a $228 million settlement last summer, but it has obtained at least 22 waivers, in part by arguing that it has “a strong record of compliance with securities laws.” Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, which merged in 2009, have settled 15 fraud cases and received at least 39 waivers.

Only about a dozen companies — Dell, General Electric and United Rentals among them — have felt the full force of the law after issuing misleading information about their businesses. Citigroup was the only major Wall Street bank among them. In 11 years, it settled six fraud cases and received 25 waivers before it lost most of its privileges in 2010.

Read the rest of this post...

How hard-right Movement Conservatives use "the fog" to confuse their opposition

Rick Perlstein has his usual great piece up at Rolling Stone, his regular digs these days. And as is often the case, there's almost too much to like.

He makes a great point about how Romney's Mormonism won't eventually matter; you can read it just for that (I happen to agree with him). Or you can read it for the interesting history of the anti-Roe campaign (psst: evangelicals had to be organized into opposing Roe). I may write that up later.

My focus today is this great catch near the end. Here's a perfect example of how the right wing confounds its opposition (us). They are extremely professional. I call it "using the fog" (my emphasis and reparagraphing):

Not so long ago, a black man marrying a blond woman was a lynching offense among American reactionaries; now we have a black man, a reactionary himself, married to a blond woman, on the Supreme Court.

I like to imagine, as a thought experiment, the day, perhaps not too far off, when a Republican president nominates a Supreme Court Justice married to someone of the same sex, maybe even with the sanction of "orthodox" theology – with that gay Supreme Court justice casting the deciding vote that finally overturns Roe vs. Wade. It could happen. When the siren song of cobelligerency beckons, theological qualms tend to fall away. That's the way it's always been.

Clarence Thomas lost us in the fog, didn't he? At least he lost the leaders of the Democratic party opposition. Then he scampered to the goal, where he'll live till he dies.

Lost in the fog — If I was a strategist on the right, this is how I'd play it every time. They only have to throw us off balance briefly — we buy the stutter-step and quit running, they race past us to the goal — which is all they every care about in the world.

As my old Uncle Straight Talk used to say (who's much more direct than yours truly) — "Do they care about blacks? They care about winning. Do they care about gays? They care about winning. Do they care about women? They care about winning. Got that, son?"

Uncle Straight Talk knew a thing or two: They care about nothing else in the world. Why is that hard to respond to?

They lose us in the fog which they create. It's such a simple tactic — and folks, so easy to defeat. It doesn't matter if the fog is gayness, blackness ... or women-helping-women-fighting-cancer–ness (even if only 24% of the monster haul goes to Research and the rest of it funds everything else).

The fog is the fog; easy to spot. If you see the fog, and you see the knife, always watch the knife.

Simple, yes?

GP Read the rest of this post...

Komen statement on Planned Parenthood is a PR move, not a policy reversal

Amen. StudentActivism.net parallels what I wrote earlier today - this is from their post:

The Susan G. Komen Foundation released a statement moments ago that many are greeting as a reversal of their decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. On Twitter, the Breaking News feed called it a “pledge to continue funding Planned Parenthood,” while Glenn Greenwald called it “an amazing, Internet-driven victory.”

But it’s not.

The new statement does not pledge Komen to reverse its funding decision, and it does not promise Planned Parenthood any new funding. Let’s look at the relevant passage (emphasis mine):

“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.”

Komen had never intended to renege on its existing grant commitments to Planned Parenthood, as PP themselves noted in their press release announcing the break between the two organizations (again, emphasis mine):

“In the last few weeks, the Komen Foundation has begun notifying local Planned Parenthood programs that their breast cancer initiatives will not be eligible for new grants (beyond existing agreements or plans).“

Komen’s statement that Planned Parenthood will be “eligible” for new grants is a new development, but it commits Komen to nothing. There’s no reversal of the funding cutoff here, and no promise to reinstate Planned Parenthood funding.

This isn’t a victory. Not yet.

Read the rest of this post...

Why does the right imagine war with Iran would be popular?

The war fever that was building in early January suddenly subsided without any apparent reason. We now know that Obama warned Netanyahu and Barak that the Israel would fight alone if they started a war with Iran without prior US agreement.

There is a section of the US polity that simply can't feel right unless the US is engaged in at least one war.   Like a gambler who must keep returning to the table after each loss, the next war will always be the one that wipes away the defeat in Vietnam.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Gadaffi was the number one enemy of the West. Gadaffi's funds, guns and explosives backed the Baader-Meinhoff gang, Action Directe, the IRA and PIRA. Obama has helped remove him from office without a single US soldier's boot touching the soil of Libya yet this is not enough for the militarists; From their point of view it is the wrong sort of success won in the wrong way. They don't want the Libyan people to be choosing their own government, agency is their prerogative. Helping the Libyan people oust a dictator does not advance the cause of US supremacy or erase the stain of Vietnam. Only war with Iran will suffice.

A war with Iran is all but certain if Romney or Gingrich becomes President. But that looks a remote prospect and so the idea is being floated that Israel should start a war with Iran just before the election forcing Obama to choose between abandoning Israel and defeat or joining Israel's war.

As political strategies go, it is the second stupidest proposal I have heard. The stupidest being the idea that a war with a country three times larger than Iraq would be anything less than a three times the fiasco.

The only scenario in which there would be pressure on Obama to join Israel a war they started against Iran is if Israel was losing. And in that case, Obama would be being asked to intervene to save Israel from the consequences of a blunder committed by her own politicians.

There is no doubt that Obama would be obliged intervene to save Israel but he would be under no obligation to save Netanyahu or Barak. Having had his authority challenged, Obama would at minimum have to require them to resign before coming to Israel's aid and that alone might be sufficient for Iran to suspend hostilities.

Far from being the electoral poison chalice that the Republican operatives imagine, Obama holds all the cards and he knows that joining Netanyahu's war for fear of the Israel lobby would mean near certain electoral defeat. Read the rest of this post...

Unitus credit union sends letter to members blaming Dodd-Frank for benefits cuts

Click image to see larger version

Read the rest of this post...

Komen caves, kinda, but still refusing to approve Planned Parenthood’s funding next year

The Susan G. Komen foundation caved today.  Kinda.  They issued a statement apologizing for the mess they created this week when they cut funding for Planned Parenthood breast exams for poor women, seemingly under pressure from far right politicos and anti-choice groups.  But Komen's apology is slightly lacking. And according to their own CEO last night, they still can't approve future grants from Planned Parenthood. Unless she was lying.

In the apology Komen says that they'll continue Planned Parenthood's current funding, and they're changing their "no investigations" rule to say that it must be a criminal investigation, and conclusive.  Okay, but the current funding wasn't at issue.  Komen had always said they'd continue the current funding, so that's a red herring.  The issue is next year's funding, which Komen just turned down.  And on that account, Komen now says this:

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.

Preserve their ability to apply? What, Komen won't go to Planned Parenthood and steal all the pens so PPFA can't apply again in the future?  They could always try to apply again.  That's not the point.

If Komen is serious, they can simply approve the application Planned Parenthood has already submitted. Yes, they turned it down once, supposedly because of the now-old rule about investigations. Fine. If the rule is gone, then approve the grant.

Of course, it's even more complicated because of a video statement Komen CEO, Republican donor, and former Bush appointee, Nancy Brinker issued last night claiming that the right-wing congressional investigation had nothing to do with the decision to turn down Planned Parenthood's grant. Rather, Brinker now says Komen turned PPFA down because Komen no longer funds pass-through grants. So if that's the case, then changing Komen's investigations-rule won't change a thing. They'll still turn down Planned Parenthood again next time because of the supposed pass-through grant. Unless of course, Nancy Brinker was lying last night.  So which is it?

The only way that Komen can get out of this mess is by approving Planned Parenthood's grant now. Komen has the application, they killed it for political reasons, and they got caught. And then to add insult to injury, Brinker concocted a new story last night.

If Komen really wants to do penance, they'll approve PPFA's grant now.

UPDATE: This statement from a right-wing Catholic group pretty much sums things up correctly:

“This represents nothing new. We have known and have reported that they are continuing five grants through 2012. This is a reference to that. The second clause about eligibility is certainly true. Any group can apply for anything. It does not mean they are going to get anything,” Ruse told LifeNews.

“What this is is an effort to get the mafia off of their backs. As James Taranto said in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, this is a classic shakedown operation. Give us money or we will destroy you. This is Komen’s attempt to save their organization, which we should know is in peril. Our side should know that nothing has changed.”

Bottom line: Komen cut funding for Planned Parenthood, it is facing massive revolt from its chapters and temendous opposition from Planned Parenthood and the media, and it appears to be leaving the door open for potential grants — not that they will necessarily happen beyond the ones previously approved prior to the decision — to please both sides.

Now that Planned Parenthood has issued a statement embracing Komen, and apparently accepting the "apology," the battle is over. I'm just not entirely sure that Planned Parenthood won. Komen should approve next year's grant now.

As for the Race for the Cure, we now know what Komen really is. And I don't know about you, but I don't give money to organizations that do David Vitter's bidding. Read the rest of this post...

Facebook's Zuckerberg may never pay taxes again

Ahhh, it's the Romney Rule all over again.

Whether you like Facebook or even Mark Zuckerberg, nobody can deny that Zuckerberg has worked hard to build the company into what it is today. However, it's challenging to see the fairness in even discussing how a soon to be billionaire may never again pay taxes. It's possible and even likely that he will have more stock, which means paying taxes but this is an amazing scenario to consider. The discussion points out how unfair the Romney Rule is for those outside of the 1%. Does anyone honestly think this is fair? CNBC:

People sometimes talk about the rich “living off the interest” of their wealth. But that’s not really a tax efficient way to live if you are really, really wealthy. It’s better to live off of debt and muni bonds.

The best thing for Zuckerberg would be a home equity line of credit—perhaps multiple home equity lines. He would borrow against the value of real estate he owns. The money he receives from the HELOC is debt rather than income, which means it isn’t taxed. Even better, the interest he pays on the HELOC can be used to offset other income he may earn.

Zuckerberg will also be able to access credit secured by his Facebook holdings—which will amount to billions of dollars. These lines of credit will not be tax advantaged—no deduction for interest payments—but they will supply him with spending money that will not be taxed.

Read the rest of this post...

Unemployment down, payrolls up

The problems are far from over but a bit of positive news is always good to hear. Bloomberg:

Employment climbed more than forecast in January and the U.S. jobless rate unexpectedly fell to the lowest in three years, casting doubt on whether the Federal Reserve can wait until 2014 before raising interest rates. The 243,000 increase in payrolls was the most since April and exceeded all forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey, Labor Department figures showed in Washington. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, the lowest since February 2009. The jump in hiring shows companies are gaining confidence the expansion will weather Europe’s slump and may boost President Barack Obama’s re-election bid. The data come one week after Fed policy makers said the economy wasn’t growing fast enough to push down the jobless rate, prompting them to extend a pledge to keep interest rates low for another two years.

Read the rest of this post...

What will progressives do about apparent right-wing "fog shops" like Komen?

(See below for explanation of my term "fog shop.")

As you know by now, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the parent organization of the breast cancer fundraiser "Race for the Cure" (they of pink ribbon fame), suddenly cut off hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding for Planned Parenthood clinics to provide breast exams to poor women around the country. Komen claims the move wasn't politically motivated, but then admitted to the AP that a conservative House Republican's "investigation" of Planned Parenthood was a "key factor" in their decision.

Let's step back for a moment. First, we "knew" that the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, which ostensibly supports breast cancer research and treatment, was "non-partisan, apolitical."

How did we "know" this? Because "everyone knows that."

Peeling back the veil, however, reveals what everyone (conveniently) doesn't know.

■ Hadassah Lieberman, wife of Holy Joe "Short Ride" Lieberman, is one of their big angels and backers. The New Hampshire Register in 2006 (h/t FDL, my emphasis throughout):

This fight [the 2006 senatorial race] isn’t exclusively being drawn along party lines.

U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who often takes a conservative line on social issues, is facing a liberal Democratic primary challenge from wealthy Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. But that hasn’t stopped Lieberman from supporting the approach of the Catholic hospitals when it comes to contraceptives for rape victims.

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

Here's Hadassah's support for Komen:

Hadassah Lieberman has long been associated with Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, working with us on breast cancer education and awareness in other countries as a Susan G. Komen Global Ambassador. Her efforts have been invaluable and we intend to keep tapping her expertise to fulfill our goal to bring breast cancer programs to women in countries who have few resources to battle this disease. ...

It’s been reported that Susan G. Komen for the Cure provides funding to pharmaceutical companies. That is simply not true. We have never funded pharmaceutical company research – our grants, totaling $450 million, have gone to research institutions in the U.S. and abroad. Another $900 million in Susan G. Komen for the Cure funding has gone to programs in communities world-wide. We will commit another $50 million to research in the coming year.

Why that disclaimer? Because of this — Hadassah's "other job". Joe Conason, again in 2006:

In bed with Big Pharma
Hadassah Lieberman worked for a powerhouse lobbying firm. Were her clients' special interests being served by her husband?

... [Lieberman campaign spokesman Dan] Gerstein went on to note that Mrs. Lieberman “has never been a registered lobbyist” according to records kept by the Senate clerk.

In my original column on Mrs. Lieberman’s work for Hill & Knowlton, I carefully refrained from labeling her a lobbyist, since I knew that she had not registered as one. Whether she should have registered is difficult to determine, however, because neither Gerstein nor anyone else associated with either the Lieberman campaign or Hill & Knowlton will discuss what services she performed for the company, one of the biggest lobby shops in Washington, which hired her in March 2005.

Her vague title was “senior counselor” in the firm’s “health care and pharmaceuticals practice.”

This is Hill+Knowlton. Small-timers, right?

So that's one data point (and note the dates).

■ Karen Handel & Nancy Brinker. John Aravosis recently found this:

Yesterday we learned that a top Komen official is also a GOP anti-abortion activist who promised less than two years ago to shut down funding to Planned Parenthood.

Today we learn from Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones that Komen's founder, Nancy Goodman Brinker, is a major Republican donor who served as an ambassador in the George W. Bush administration, one assumes as payback for the more than $175,000 she gave to Republican candidates and the RNC since 1990.

More at the link.

■ Still not enough? Here's Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic (via Digby, who adds her own comments):

[T]hree sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut-off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new "no-investigations" rule applies to only one so far.) The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization's new senior vice-president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion and who has said that since she is "pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." ... The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen.

Digby calls adding Handel to the team the "willing hire of a forced childbirth zealot." Amen.

■ And they appear to have gotten rid of their Democratic lobbyist before hiring Movement Conservative loyalist Karen Handel. Getting the picture? Rotting from the top down perhaps?

What does this add up to?

Komen's founder, Nancy Goodman Brinker, is a long-time "loyal Bushie" — a huge GOP donor and ThankYou recipient. An active arm, in other words, of the Movement Conservative project. She hires, among other people, Karen Handel as VP of "Public Policy". Handel is a former Palin-endorsed candidate for GOP governor in Georgia who is staunchly anti-gay, and who promised during her run for governor to defund Planned Parenthood.

Are you ready to believe that Komen's dropping of Planned Parenthood is an accident? If so, silly you, say I. Any guesses how many other Movement Conservative warriors are harbored (and very nicely paid, thank you) within those women-supported Komen walls? (Consider this a research project for you grad students. I'm serious. Twitter me links; I always give credit.)

I'm starting to believe, until proven otherwise, that the Susan G. Komen enterprises are dangerously close to becoming a right-wing "fog shop" — i.e., a Movement Conservative operation that functions on the surface as a "woman's rights"–friendly do-gooder op, while harboring within it the nasty seed of wicked right-wing intentions.

Here's Salon's Mary Elizabeth Williams this week:

It’s not that Komen is some questionable, Wyclef Jean-esque mess. It gets high marks from both the Better Business Bureau and Charity Navigator. Yet this is an organization that has repeatedly come under fire for its extravagant promotion of itself as an organization dedicated to a “cure,” when only a small portion of its expenses go to, you know, curing cancer. Komen itself cops to portioning just 24 percent of its funds to research – and 20 percent to fundraising and administration. For an organization with reported revenues of nearly $350 million, that’s still a lot of money for research. It’s an awful lot for itself, too.

So which is the main show and which the distracting opening act? Is the do-gooder chocolatey coating (with only 24% of funds passed to reasearch and only 7% to treatment) more important to them? Or is it the truly nasty anti-abortion core, which they've hired to support?

In my opinion, if you bought the cover as the primary story, you're lost in the fog. Komen seems to think the fact that they do indeed do good, means that you'll be all a-muddle when their knife come out. Don't be confused by the do-gooder chocolatey cover story. It was designed to confuse you. Folks, always ignore the deflection and watch the hand with the knife.

Which leads to my question: What will progressives do about this?

     Walk away, withdrawing their support as they leave?
     Ask nicely by sending petitions?
     Pull out your own metaphorical knife and, in effect, say Bring it?

I know what the other side would do. How? Because they've already done it. That knife in Planned Parenthood's back is theirs.

Action Opportunity

The moment is now, when it's news. If progressives (especially, but not exclusively, progressive women) handle this with petitions, every apolitical woman who "runs for the cure" will think Komen is just an apolitical group caught up in a accidental political war. And they will continue to support them.

The "fog" wins, and Komen continues to fund-raise.

You can stop Komen, the way the right-wing stops everyone on our side — by spreading the truth and burning their "apolitical" brand to the ground, salting it so it never rises again.

But those are just my thoughts; I'll leave it to the pros to game this out. Brighter minds than me should be thinking this through.

My only point is in the title of this piece. What are progressives going to do about that knife in their back? Stay confused? Or teach someone a lesson.

Educationally yours,

GP

[Updated to clarify their pass-through percentages.] Read the rest of this post...

Komen changes story 180 degrees on why they defunded Planned Parenthood

Like all good conservative Republicans, Komen's CEO Nancy Brinker thinks she can lie with impunity. No one is going to Google and realize that her organization had an entirely different story twelve hours ago for why they dropped Planned Parenthood. From the Washington Post:

It’s now less clear why Planned Parenthood lost the Komen funding. Komen had initially told the Associated Press that Planned Parenthood could not receive funding because it was under government investigation. But today, in no uncertain terms, Johnson indicated that the decision actually had very little to do with an ongoing congressional probe.

So why did Planned Parenthood lose funding? Brinker says it has to do with the fact that they do not provide mammograms to women, but only provide mammogram referrals. “It was nothing they were doing wrong,” she explained. “We have decided not to fund, whereever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

The Google is a tyrant's worst enemy.

And I guess all those Komen employees who quit as a result of this decision, and the three employees who told the Atlantic that Komen dropped Planned Parenthood because of the political pressure from Republicans, are just lying.

This Komen thing just keeps getting uglier and uglier.  I don't see how the Race for the Cure, which Komen runs, survives being politicized like this. Read the rest of this post...