Terry J. Allen pulls back the covers a smidge:

The military pooh-poohs the problem, despite a 2009 Pentagon document noting 'an estimated 11 million pounds [5,000 tonnes] of hazardous waste' produced by American troops, the Times of London reported. In any case, it says, the waste isn't all that toxic, and there is no hard evidence troops were harmed. Of course, one reason for that lack of evidence, reports the Institute of Medicine (which found 53 toxins in the air above the Balad air base alone), is that the Pentagon won't or can't document what it burned and buried, or where it did so. [...]

[S]ick and dying vets, this time from Iraq and Afghanistan, are trying to trace their cancers and respiratory problems to the toxins of war. Again, the military refuses to release complete data, and claims the data show no harmful effects. Again, the assumption of culpability, and the clean-up efforts will come too little, too late.

A July article in the New England Journal of Medicine studied 80 soldiers disabled with constrictive bronchiolitis, 'a very rare finding' in otherwise healthy, young non-smokers. Almost all the cases were traced to 'inhalational exposures during service in Iraq and Afghanistan.' The journal lamented : 'This group causes particular concern, since their potential toxic exposures are shared by most personnel who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.'

And, oh, yes, by those left to endure the predictable consequences of expedient poisoning. You're welcome, Iraq.'

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2004:

Colin Powell went to the UN and engaged in one the most infamous acts of Propaganda in World history.  We must never forget.

 Additionally, Powell violated his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, his fraternity and fidelity to the men in uniform he served with, and his  so-called Powell Doctrine, that he helped create in the mid 1980s.  He destroyed not only his reputation, but everything he stood for.  Moreover, he tuned his back on Duty, Honor, Country, all in slavish obedience to the temporary occupant of the White House.

Today, we find ourselves in a Quagmire, where 500 G.I.s will die per year, where 10,000 casualties will occur per year, where $50 to 100 Billion will be wasted per year - now and for the foreseeable future - all because Powell and company abdicated the Principle of Exit Strategy.

Today, Karl Rove sent out CIA Director George Tenent (the man sitting behind Powell at the UN) to feed the media machine, so as to distract their recollection of this date.  But we, the true patriots of this country, must never forget.

Tweet of the Day:

High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.

Things that appear certain, based on polling:

What is quite a bit less clear, however, is if this really does portend the beginning of the end for the Republican presidential horse race. More on that after the jump. For now, the numbers from two days of polling (yesterday's Wrap having been sabotaged by a computer virus beating up my laptop):

NATIONAL (YouGov): Romney 29, Gingrich 23, Santorum 20, Paul 14

ARIZONA (Rasmussen): Romney 48, Gingrich 24, Santorum 13, Paul 6

GEORGIA (SurveyUSA): Gingrich 45, Romney 32, Santorum 9, Paul 8

MICHIGAN (Rasmussen): Romney 38, Gingrich 23, Santorum 17, Paul 14

NEVADA (PPP): Romney 50, Gingrich 25, Paul 15, Santorum 8

NEVADA (UNLV): Romney 45, Gingrich 25, Santorum 11, Paul 9

And ... as always ... the general election nums, as well:

NATIONAL (YouGov): Obama d. Paul (48-40); Obama d. Romney (49-40); Obama d. Santorum (50-40); Obama d. Gingrich (52-37)

GEORGIA (SurveyUSA): Romney d. Obama (51-43); Gingrich d. Obama (50-44)

MISSOURI (PPP): Obama tied with Romney (45-45); Obama d. Paul (45-43); Obama d. Santorum (47-44); Obama d. Gingrich (49-42)

Some thoughts as we head into the weekend, right after the jump.

It's a fairly simple piece of legislation as far as tax reform goes, creating basically an alternative minimum tax for millionaires. Where it gets slightly complicated is in an adjustment for those making between $1 and 2 million, a provision that would allow for the tax to be gradually phased in. This would avoid a 'tax cliff,' where a taxpayer going from $999,999 to $1 million, would pay on a phased-in basis a portion of the extra tax required to get up to the 30 percent effective tax rate. This would also potentially prevent a problem Klein identifies of people at that threshold just evading their taxes.

The premise of the bill is simple, but the rationale lying behind it is interesting, and something Klein tries to delve into a bit, asking whether Democrats might be ceding the fight on ending the Bush tax cuts, pushing the threshold of "wealthy" from $250,000 upward, and the concern that "there's no one left looking at taxes as a revenue measure, and asking what should be the basic question: what level of taxation do we need to fund the government we think we want, and what's the best way to get there'"

He got a semi-answer from Whitehouse:

Klein's question was more to the point of when are Democrats going to start talking about the necessity of revenue to keep the government functioning, which is the larger argument that needs to be made against the nihilism of Republicans who basically just want to sell it off. From a short-term political perspective, the Buffett Rule push makes a lot of sense. Now is the moment to seize the argument of economic inequality, of tax fairness and to force Republicans to vote on it.

But the long-term case for a progressive tax structure and for the necessity of it to allow for a government that works'the existential fight we're in right now'needs to be made.

For one thing, in some cases, an existing union would just be dissolved. "In a merger," Shook explains, "if the larger workforce is non-union, there would simply be no election to determine representation of the combined group. The union and the contract would simply go away."

In other cases, though, hurdles galore. Accompanying the new 50 percent threshold to call for a union representation election, management would control all the information on how many people might be eligible to vote and who they were. That means they could pad the numbers required to get to 50 percent. Then, because the requirement threshold would now be written into the statute, it would be subject to litigation. That would not only allow companies to drag out the process, the union cards the workers had signed would be subject to discovery. It's a perfect opportunity for management to intimidate union supporters.

This is no compromise. Tell Congress to pass a clean FAA bill, without the union-busting.

Well, there's partisanship and then there's the American people.

Gallup asked the question of adults as to their level of support for five economic proposals expected in the State of the Union speech. Here's the same list of proposals broken down by partisanship. Note that the support from Republicans drops off for the "big government alternative energy" and the "tax the rich" proposals:

Yet the Big Government jobs education idea is a political winner with everyone, including a bare majority of Republicans. While one might argue that "Big Government is fine so long as it's about me (and keep your hands off my Medicare)" is popular with everyone, the real underlying message is this:

It's all about jobs.

At the same time, unions are highlighting not just the recent anti-union vote but ongoing labor struggles in the state. Think Progress reports that:

Unite Here has planned a Friday afternoon rally at the Hyatt Regency Indianapolis, where 20 workers may lose their jobs as Hyatt switches from one low-wage subcontractor to another; the original subcontractor was recently sued for wage theft. DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, is slated to participate in that rally.

'American democracy was born out of a rejection of the monarchies of Western Europe, anchored by limited government and separation of powers,' Texas Sen. John Cornyn said in a statement. 'We refuse to stand by as this president arrogantly casts aside our Constitution and defies the will of the American people under the election-year guise of defending them.'

While they don't specify which actual case they'll be joining, they just wanted the world to know that, yeah, they're still pissed about it and mean to do something, the specifics of which are to be determined. The National Federation of Independent Businesses and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed one case against the NLRB appointments, which provides a potential case for them to join.

What is worth celebrating, however, is the instantaneous and spontaneous and powerful reaction of the blogosphere and social media that first spotlighted Komen's decision, splattered it from coast to coast, drove a hugely successful fund-raising effort for Planned Parenthood and'assisted by Komen's incompetent management of the crisis it had created'permanently damaged the foundation's brand, bringing to light information that few Americans have previously heard. That is a victory. And it shouldn't be nay-said.

But while quaffing the bubbly, that victory should be recognized for what it is: self-defense. Together, those of us who believe in ensuring that women without means can get basic and preventive health care as well as exercise their reproductive rights, fought what amounted to a rearguard action, struggling to hang onto ground gained long ago. It's not unlike other struggles in other arenas, like those we engage in these days to hang onto the gains of the New Deal and Great Society while right-wing forces do their damnedest to dismantle them. But what we need is both self-defense and offense.

What we've witnessed and participated in during the past two days has been a skirmish in an on-going war with relentless, ruthless foes. This was not an isolated event but a line item on the agenda of a right wing movement determined to return us to the way things were. For the record, those weren't the good old days.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE'

Late Night Snarksters Document Teh Crazy:

Lots more at Dan Kurtzman's place. Oh, and something I heard this week on The Daily Show that you should know about:

Elizabeth Warren: I hate to tell you this, but Tom Brady. The Pats are gonna spank the Giants. We're gonna git'cha! I'm sorry, it's just reality.

We have nothing further to add.

Your west coast-friendly edition of  Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Oh, for the love of:

Well, consider me properly chastened. I should have known right off the bat that, when some group manages to botch up a situation beyond all hope of credible recovery, there was going to be a connection to the George Bush crowd.

So the Komen Foundation was, in December, looking for someone to help them roll out a strategy for properly caving to the right. And the guy they put in charge of the search' Ari Fleischer. That Ari Fleischer, proud face of such great Bush initiatives as shut up, Iraq will be a cakewalk, nobody here mentioned Valerie Plame and these new tax cuts will be great for the economy.

Yeah, I can't imagine how putting a Bush guy in charge of that process could possibly have ended up as a gargantuan public clusterfuck.

But it took only about two days for those very same conservative figures to declare that the blistering public outrage against the Komen Foundation for caving in to those demands (mind you, there was precious little pressure involved with the "cave," as the shift appears to be mostly due to the group's own ideological stances) was itself "gangsterism" and the like. In other words, and as usual, it's conservatives who are the real victims here.

A multi-year concerted effort to shut down a nonprofit for ideological reasons, one even pursued in the halls of Congress: not just fine, but applauded. A pushback against said partisan efforts' Tyranny! Villainy! Oppression!

It's not a made-up sentiment: I'm quite convinced they genuinely feel that way. Their larger premise is, after all, that all non-conservative positions are inherently invalid, therefore any actions you might take to sabotage something non-conservative are inherently legitimate. Merely criticizing those conservative moves, however, are not. It's entirely directional, you see.

More below the fold.

Editor's note: Today it is my sincere privilege and honor to introduce our newest cartoon contributor, an artist destined to be the maraschino cherry atop the hot fudge and whipped cream sundae that is the Daily Kos Comics page -- Ruben Bolling.  I have known Ruben since at least 1995, and admired the inventive wit and keen intelligence of his weekly strip, Tom the Dancing Bug, for longer than that.  And I'm hardly alone in recognizing his talent -- he won the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists in 2011, and has received the AAN award more times than anyone can count.   There's even a live-action motion picture in development based on one of his recurrent characters.  So please join me in welcoming Ruben (if that is his real name) into the clutches of the Great Orange Satan, where he'll be a regular in the TGIF/happy hour slot each week.  -- Tom Tomorrow

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has hired two lawyers in advance of a meeting with the Milwaukee County district attorney, whose office is conducting investigation into members of Walker's staff.

Charges have already been made against four Walker staffers and appointees as part of this investigation. Two former aides were charged with using public resources for Republican political campaigns, while the others are accused of, as Giles goat Boy put it:

Walker claims the upcoming meeting with prosecutors is voluntary. He better hope these chitchats stay that way.

First, I want to say though I anticipate never having to confront the dilemma of an unwanted pregnancy myself, I unequivocally stand by a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices, and against this insane environment that is demonizing Planned Parenthood.

In fact, the first night I heard about it I was so enraged I, like so many others, burned up my Twitter feed yelling at @komenforthecure and retweeting anyone who, like me, was equally outraged at this outrageously stupid decision.

I was so enraged'and I am not making this up'a New York Times reporter contacted me to talk about grassroots pushback. Who knows' I might get quoted. I think I pointed him to more newsworthy subjects though.

More below the fold.

That's what Politico does in this story about Republicans in the Senate. Some of them, it suggests, think that they actually should come up with some policy ideas. They are butting heads, the article says, with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose explicit and only goal has been making Barack Obama a one-term president. Apparently, there are some other Republican senators who think they should at least make it look like they mean to do ... something.

But the strategies all carry great risk. If the GOP rolls out an agenda, it will be picked apart and take the focus off Obama. If the party doesn't bother, it risks giving the president more opportunities to slap the 'do-nothing' label on Congress.

Actually, that needs to be clarified a little: If the GOP rolls out an agenda, it risks becoming even more unpopular with the American public. But here's something sure to tickle your funny bone:

'We need to call out the Obama-Schumer machine when they change the topic from a record they can't defend,' said Thune's presentation, referring to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. 'After we call them out, get back on offense! Pivot back to what matters'jobs and the economy.'

Back' Yes, if anything, the Senate GOP caucus has just been doing a bang-up job of focusing on jobs and the economy. More of that!!

As if anything the Senate Republicans do matters in this election. The House GOP is hellbent for crazy. No amount of positive spin from the Senate will cover that up. Seriously, not when they're dealing with people like Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, former chairman of the House Republican campaign committee, saying things like: "It's a very political year. The big thing for us is to not be part of the conversation instead of trying to inject ourselves into it."

I am one of those millions of women. And that's why I will always stand with Planned Parenthood and against any person or organization who stands in its way.

I could give you the facts. I could quote studies, recite statistics. You want links' Research' Proof' I could give you that. There is plenty of that.

But I'm just going to tell you what I know.

For most of the women in this country, Planned Parenthood is the easiest, cheapest, safest'and sometimes only way'to see a doctor. For even the most basic of medical care, like breast exams and pap smears, Planned Parenthood is our best'and sometimes only'option.

Not all women need Planned Parenthood. Those with money and/or really good health insurance that doesn't pick and choose what sorts of medical care women "should" have don't need to depend on the sliding scale. Many more women have, at some point in their lives, sought care at Planned Parenthood. Even the protesters and the zealots'yes, even they have turned to Planned Parenthood in their time of need.

Women's standard of living is best improved when they control their reproduction. Education, career, financial stability, health and happiness'all of these things are more easily attained when women determine the direction of their own lives, when their choices and their bodies are not subject to the whim and will of others.

We all know the arguments, the slogans, the bumper stickers. We know what we are supposed to imagine nine months later, once a woman's body has ceased to serve its purpose as incubator and grower of life, as property of the state or church, as property belonging to something or someone other than herself. Now there is a separate swaddled being, and if she will not or cannot provide care, we are supposed to imagine all the other rose-colored-glass-half-full possibilities to assure ourselves that it will all work out for the best for mother and child and society.

But that is a lie. When a woman's body is not her own property, when she is deprived of the right to make those most basic decisions for herself, it rarely works out for anyone.

Click to donate to Planned Parenthood.

'For 15 years, the Lance Armstrong Foundation has served people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. We join Mayor Bloomberg and our partners in the philanthropic community today in their efforts to preserve access to cancer screening for women throughout the U.S. The Lance Armstrong Foundation will add an additional $100,000 to Mayor Bloomberg's matching challenge for Planned Parenthood's cancer services fund.

In addition to that $250,000 pledged by Mayor Bloomberg, the Amy and Lee Fikes' Foundation provided $250,000 in seed funding, and Credo, a phone company, pledged $200,000.

You can make sure those matching pledges are paid up by donating whatever you can to Planned Parenthood. Your small donation will be doubled, and Planned Parenthood will continue to be able to provide vital health care services to women who otherwise wouldn't be able to get them.

Their job: to assist the Afghan troops in doing whatever it takes to get the elders of Marzak, a once pro-Taliban village that lies astride a key extremist supply route, to 'volunteer' another 25 young men to staff a new Afghan Local Police force that the International Security Assistance Force hopes will permanently secure the town and the supply route.

When carrots don't work'including $225 a month, weapons and other supplies'sticks are used, including the same kind of threats the Taliban used to recruit fighters.

Concerns have grown that the program could linger in bureaucratic purgatory, while government officials, conservationists, solar firms and power companies hash out complex rules for speeding up the process for getting giant solar plants built without harming environmentally fragile areas. The Department of Interior has garnered more than 100,000 comments from stakeholders eager to shape the program.

Just over two short years ago, Scott Brown was campaigning with tea party groups and conservative talk radio in Massachusetts and beyond, selling himself as "the 41st vote" against health care reform in the Senate. Now, facing Elizabeth Warren's strong challenge and presidential election-year turnout, he's changed his tune somewhat. Oh, he's still railing against "Obamacare" to partisan crowds, but he's also playing up his "independent voice," trying to find that delicate balance of tying himself to President Obama enough to give independent voters something to like without alienating Republicans.

The AP rounds up some examples, like Brown's statement supporting Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and his touting of a three-sentence conversation with Obama on their shared support for banning insider trading by members of Congress.

There are two issues here. One is that Scott Brown is running scared from Elizabeth Warren. This is not how it was supposed to play out for Senator 41, the hot new Republican celebrity of the big Republican year of 2010. Massachusetts Democrats were not supposed to be able to find a candidate with a compelling biography, a strong voice on economic issues, exceptional media skills and enormous fundraising ability (which you can contribute to via Orange to Blue). But then Elizabeth Warren emerged, and Scott Brown had to start fighting for his political future'and if that means cozying up to Obama, he'll do it.

The other issue, though, is that this article is a preview of just how complicit the traditional media will be in Brown's attempts to portray himself as independent, not really that conservative, actually the perfect Beltway moderate. We are going to hear, ad infinitum, about the handful of votes he's taken against his party, and not about the avalanche of votes he's taken with them. We're going to hear that he voted for financial reform and not that the price of his vote was a provision that saved the big banks $19 billion. We're going to hear that he voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, but not that he's sticking to every other anti-gay position. Scott Brown's going to keep taking the most conservative position he thinks he can take while still surviving in Massachusetts. That doesn't make him an independent, no matter what the AP claims.

Corporate sponsorship brings a lot of money to breast cancer research'but funding from pharmaceutical companies isn't going to steer us away from thinking the answer to breast cancer lies in expensive pharmaceuticals. Funding from make-up and food companies isn't going to address the use of carcinogens in everyday products. And regardless of their stance toward Planned Parenthood, that's exactly the approach Komen takes.

Donate to Planned Parenthood so they can continue providing actual care to women who need it.

This announcement from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman indicates that there's still some hope that foreclosure fraud prosecutions could occur.

A couple of important things: This is an action in Schneiderman's capacity of AG for New York'it is completely separate from his task force work with the new commission created by President Obama. That group is limited to pre-housing bubble conduct, this is targeted at ongoing and current fraud. It's also another potential blow to the settlement negotiations between the states and the feds, and an indication that Schneiderman is no closer to an agreement there than he's ever been. That settlement would release the banks of liability in foreclosure fraud, and Schneiderman clearly doesn't want them off the hook.

But most importantly, it specifically targets MERS as a creation of the banks "to allow financial institutions to evade local county recording fees, avoid the hassle and paperwork of publicly recording mortgage transfers, and facilitate the rapid sale and securitization of mortgages." It goes on, "MERS' indiscriminate use of non-employee 'certifying officers' to execute vital legal documents has confused, misled, and deceived homeowners and the courts and made it difficult to ascertain whether a party actually has the right to foreclose."

The suit seeks injunctive relief as well as damages for the thousands of New York homeowners harmed by MERS. It's as strong a shot across the bow of continuing fraudulent foreclosures by big banks as you could hope for.

But it's not.

Greg Sargent reports:

Right. So in other words, the foundation's announcement isn't reversing anything at all.

Further:

Yes, it really is unclear. The Komen Foundation needs to state unequivocally that it will continue its long practice of working with Planned Parenthood; otherwise, this looks like nothing more than an attempt to try to change the narrative and the non-stop negative headlines about the foundation's politicizing of breast cancer prevention.

Oh, and one more thing:

That would be Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of the foundation, who has spent the last 24 hours chastising critics for criticizing Komen.

So, traditional media, are you still going to keep doing the bidding of the Komen Foundation by pretending it has changed its position' Or are you going to report the truth'

If you want to support an organization that really does care about women's health, click to donate to Planned Parenthood.

It must have been a tight-lipped half-hour for what blogger Brent Budowsky so aptly labels the "Hope America Fails" Republicans. Because, while there are concerns to be found when one drills down into the jobs data, the headline figures, the "optics" of the report as it were, are excellent election-year news for the Democrats and for President Obama. Not to mention the millions of Americans struggling to find work.

So it was no surprise that the first public Republican reactions, coming in at 9:08 AM, sounded a bit like stutters. House Speaker John Boehner:

And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:

Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers said Ronald Reagan led a faster recovery from a 'more difficult, deeper recession' that he inherited (a claim disputed by economists who say the two recessions were extremely different and uncomparable in many ways).

And Mitt Romney:

This from the guys whose party has been voting against even modest Democratic efforts to put Americans back to work following the most devastating economic downturn since Model T's were the most common car on the road. From a guy who doesn't care about poor people and who enjoys firing people. From congressional leaders who have done their damnedest to curtail programs like unemployment insurance meant to ease some of the pain of those without work. From the cohort of politicians which seeks to cut big holes in the safety net designed to shield Americans from the worst effects of recessions and the other vagaries of an economy riven by top-down class warfare.

Their hemming and hawing would be hilarious if their policy initiatives weren't so pernicious. May every month until November make them equally speechless.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Yeah, I'll just bet it has been distressing for the foundation to watch its sterling reputation go down the drain in just a few days.

Right. That would be the bogus, politically motivated investigation launched by Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, who made it quite clear last year that his goal was to shut down Planned Parenthood because he thinks women's health is icky and immoral.

What does that mean' Does that mean the foundation will not defund Planned Parenthood based on its new criteria' That isn't clear. After all, Brinker was already claiming yesterday that it would honor those grants already issued to Planned Parenthood. That was never the problem. The problem was determining that it would not give any future grants, based on its new "criteria." Does this mean Komen will continue to fund Planned Parenthood' If it does, why doesn't Brinker state that explicitly, so there is no confusion'

Ahhhhh. Right. So the real problem is those people who need to "pause" and "slow down." Translation' Stop being mad at us! Stop accusing us of politicizing women's health care! Come on, ladies, keep buying those pink spatulas! If you don't, you're making this political!

Really' What support' All those angry comments Komen has been deleting from Facebook' All those people who are saying they will no longer support Komen's events or buy Komen's products' The Komen employees who are resigning in protest' The senators who are sending sternly worded letters' The Komen affiliates around the country who are blasting the foundation for this new policy' That support'

Sorry, but to me, this looks like more damage control. If Komen is really sorry and really changing its criteria and really continuing to fund Planned Parenthood's cancer screening and prevention programs, why doesn't it say so in big, bold letters'

This just looks like a further attempt to try to save Komen's battered image. Is that enough for you'

Want to support a real pro-women organization that really does focus on women's health care, not politics'

Click to donate to Planned Parenthood.

The P-22 Hope Edition has an exclusive DuraCoat Pink slide in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month. Utilizing the same reliable controls and firing mechanism that has made the Walther P-22 America's top selling handgun, the Hope Edition will be a limited production pistol offered exclusively through Discount Gun Sales.

Donate to Planned Parenthood here.

Update:

"We do not have partnerships with any firearms manufacturer. Nor does our Seattle Affiliate receive donations from this manufacturer," said Andrea Rader, who works in the public relations department at Komen. "As you noted, they even got the name of our organization wrong."

Remember this post-mortem from House Speaker John Boehner after taking the nation hostage over raising the debt ceiling'

He's going for the other two percent.

"Sequester" is the legislatese for the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts the Congress agreed to in their deal with the White House last August. It was that, or cuts made by the Super Congress, which had a best a 50-50 chance of actually succeeding. Because Republicans refuse to actually negotiate in good faith. In fact, the defense cuts were included in the eventual automatic triggers as a way to try to make Republicans actually bargain for real, because everyone knew the last thing a Republican wants to see is defense contractors losing money.

Gosh, it's almost enough to make you think you can't trust a Republican.

A must for risk communication (and that's what Susan G. Komen for the Cure is in need of, similar to when Tylenol capsules were poisoned) is to get the story straight (and make it the truth).

From the Washington Post:

Komen had said the decision was the result of newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations under investigation ' affecting Planned Parenthood because of an inquiry by a Republican congressman.

On Thursday, Komen President Elizabeth Thompson told reporters that the funding decision was unrelated to the investigation into whether Planned Parenthood was illegally using federal funds to pay for abortions.

Well, that's not "getting your story straight," and the result is reflected in the NY Times headline:

Her comments directly contradicted those of John D. Raffaelli, a Komen board member and Washington lobbyist, who told The New York Times on Wednesday that Komen made the changes to its grant-making process specifically to end its relationship with Planned Parenthood. Mr. Raffaelli said that Komen had become increasingly worried that an investigation of Planned Parenthood by Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, would damage Komen's credibility with donors.

Continue reading below the fold.

(clicky for bigger)

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the private sector generated 257,000 jobs in December and the official unemployment rate fell to 8.3 percent, the lowest level since February 2009. Layoffs in the public sector cut the total number of jobs created to 243,000. The fact that the official rate fell at the same time 250,000 workers entered the work force is a good sign.

The numbers are seasonally adjusted. The number of officially unemployed is now 12.7 million with 5.5 million of those having been out of work for six months or longer. An alternative measure of unemployment called U6 includes part-time workers who want full-time work and some but not all of the millions of people who have become too discouraged to look for work. That number fell slightly to 15.1 percent.

Revisions changed growth in payroll employment for November from 100,000 to 157,000 and in December from 200,000 to 203,000.

The civilian labor force participation rate fell again to 63.7 percent and the employment-population ratio held steady at 58.5 percent.

Here's what the numbers have looked like for the most recent five Januaries:

January 2008: +13,000
January 2009: -820,000
January 2010: -39,000
January 2011: +68,000
January 2012: +243,000

The BLS jobs report is the product of a pair of surveys, one of business establishments and the Current Population Survey of households. The establishment survey determines how many new jobs were added. The CPS provides data that determine the official "headline" unemployment rate, also known as U3. That's the number that is now at 8.3 percent.

Among other changes detailed in today's job report:

' Retail: +19,000
' Constructon: +21,000
' Transportation & warehousing:  
' Leisure and hospitality: +44,000
' Mining: +10,000
' Professional & business services +70,000
' Health care: +31,000
' Manufacturing: +50,000
' Government employment: -14,000
' The average workweek (for production and non-supervisory workers) rose to 33,8 hours.
' The average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $23.29. Over the past year such earnings have risen 1.9 percent, compared with an inflation rate of 3.2 percent.

Update: There is no doubt that this is the best job news in quite some time, especially if it keeps up. Some caveats:

In December 2007, there were 5.4 million more Americans on the job than there are now. We're slowly climbing out of that hole. But those aren't the only jobs that are "missing." Every month, thousands of Americans join the working-age population. Different people have calculated that number at 125,000 to 150,000. That means, in the past 49 months since the recession began, between 6.1 million and 7.4 million people would have joined the working-age population. Which, would mean the U.S. economy actually has a jobs deficit not of 5.4 million jobs, but of between 12 million and 13 million.

But, in a phone interview with Daily Kos, Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, said the working-age population recently has not been growing at the 127,000 level EPI calculated a few years ago but at about 90,000 a month. That's created an additional jobs deficit of 4.4 million, or a total of about 10 million.

Nonetheless, if every person of that 4.4 million had joined the work force in the past four years, as has been the case in the past, and they had not been able to find a job in this very tough economy, the official unemployment rate now would be 10.9 percent.

At the current rate of job growth, and a steady growth of 90,000 additional people entering the working-age population each month, it would take until 2019 to reach full employment again.

Some people say that this fall-off has come about because baby-boomers are starting to retire in large numbers. But, while people in the first wave of baby-boomers turn 66 in 2012, making this is the first year they can collect full Social Security benefits, there is no statistical evidence that large numbers of baby boomers are retiring. But let's take them out of the equation altogether, as Shierholz has done. Writing in early December, she said the following (and posted this grim chart to go with her analysis):

As the figure shows, the labor market plunged dramatically through the fourth quarter of 2009, and then, for the last two years, has basically bumped around at the bottom of that extremely deep hole. In other words, the improvement in the unemployment rate over the last two years, from 10 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 to 8.6 percent [for November], is due virtually entirely to people dropping out of, or not entering, the labor force ' not to a larger share of potential workers finding work. It goes without saying that that kind of improvement in the unemployment rate is not what we're looking for.

The good news this month is that people did enter the work force in fairly large numbers and the rate still fell.

' WI-Sen: We saw quite a bunch of this in 2010, including in Wisconsin, so I'm not surprised to see this sort of thing surfacing again this cycle: teabaggish anti-pork Republicans whose business interests accepted the very sort of government assistance they hotly rail against on the campaign trail. This time, it's ex-Rep. Mark Neumann, whose solar energy company received $80,000 in grants from the dreaded 2009 stimulus package.

Of course Neumann, whose 2010 gubernatorial campaign focused extensively on his opposition for the stimulus, has an excuse: He's trying to claim the money came as the result of a Bush-era program. But the problem (for him) is that the stimulus bill specifically changed the Bush system so that funds were awarded as an up-front grant, instead of making companies wait to receive them as a tax credit. Even better, a different solar company run by Neumann (how many freaking companies does this guy have') sent a letter to Congress urging it to maintain the program'and specifically cited President Obama's change to the timing of when money is disbursed as a key merit in its favor. If Neumann's rivals for the GOP nomination can't make hay of this, then they are serious incompetent.

Tonight's insanity break is a spectacular showcase for the capabilities of the video camera in the iPhone 4S.

The ideological bent of Komen Foundation public policy VP Karen Handel really becomes clear in this 2010 interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on the topic of gay marriage and adoption, in which she says she favors outlawing gay adoptions: Handel Says Gay Parents Not as 'Legitimate' as Hetero Ones.

Q: Do you view committed gay relationships as being less legitimate than committed heterosexual relationships'

A: As a Christian, I view relationships and marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Q: But what about the legitimacy of the relationship' Do you have any gay friends' Do you know gay couples'

A: Of course I do. Are we going to spend our whole day talking on this issue'

Q: I want to know how you feel about this.

A: 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.

A: 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'

A: Yeah, I would consider that, absolutely.

Q: Do you know any gay couples with children'

A: Not that I’m aware of.

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

A: 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'

A: 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.

A: Because I don’t.

(h/t: Alan Colmes.)

Komen Foundation CEO Karen Brinker may have denied that their decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood had anything to do with politics, but the religious right activists who've been waging a campaign against Planned Parenthood certainly think otherwise -- and today they're freaking over the Komen Foundation's apparent reversal: Religious Right Reacts to Komen's Latest Statement With Confusion, Anger and Warnings of God's Wrath.

Mona Charen of the National Review Online lamented that “it’s extremely disappointing that Komen has caved” but “it’s hardly surprising given the onslaught they’ve endured over the course of the last few days,” and NRO’s Daniel Foster charged Planned Parenthood with “gangsterism.” Of course, just days prior Kathryn Jean Lopez on NRO hailed Komen’s initial decision as a major victory, noting “this Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists.”

Catholic Family and Human Rights Initiative (C-Fam) president Austin Ruse told LifeSiteNews called potentially successful effort to have the Komen foundation reverse their decision defunding Planned Parenthood a “mafia shakedown”:

Pro-life leaders say that the exact import of the statement is not yet clear, and that Komen seems to be asking for breathing room, possibly with the intention of caving in definitively to pro-abortion pressure.

Austin Ruse of C-Fam told LifeSiteNews.com Friday morning that, “The mafia shakedown tactics may have worked, but we’re not sure.”

Ruse advised that pro-lifers should “take a wait and see attitude” to discern whether the pro-abortion pushback against Komen would succeed.

Kristen Walker of Live Action called it a “terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood” and wondered what will happen to all the money people gave to Komen to reward them for dropping Planned Parenthood:

If raising money to cure breast cancer were their primary concern, they would not have reversed this decision. Their donations went up 100% in the short time since they announced the halting of grants to PP as pro-lifers who have refused to donate to Komen opened their wallets to thank them for their decision, happy to finally be able to give to their good work of fighting breast cancer with a clear conscience. I wonder if Komen has given any thought to the fact that those people gave money in good faith believing it wouldn’t be used to fund abortions. Will they refund that money' I guess we’ll see.

...

It is a terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood. It is a terrible shame they’re allowing PP and its followers to compromise their mission to cure breast cancer.

Evangelist Bill Keller warned that the latest move by the Komen foundation may well lead to “the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment”:

Keller said, "It only shows the level of spiritual decay in this nation when a private foundation who made a decision to stop giving money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, causes the media, politicians, and the supporters of killing babies to go into a wild frenzy. The Catholic Church has always stood for the sanctity of life, yet Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, were livid that the Komen Foundation decided to stop giving a $250,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood."

...

Keller concluded, "You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to know that we are on the verge of seeing the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment. Every 24 hours we slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent babies. Where is the outrage about that in the media, in the halls of Congress' Sadly, society doesn't even give it a second thought and has fully embraced this 'culture of death' which hangs over this nation like a black cloud."

Judging from the statement they released, Planned Parenthood seems to believe the Komen Foundation will restore their funding for breast cancer screening.

But is the Komen Foundation just spinning some more'

I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

Does that mean Planned Parenthood will get Komen grants in the future'

I asked Komen board member John Raffaelli to respond to those who are now saying that the announcement doesn’t necessarily constitute a reversal until Planned Parenthood actually sees more funding. He insisted it would be unfair to expect the group to commit to future grants.

“It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli told me. “We’re a humaniatrian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

Pushed on whether this means the new announcement wasn’t really a reversal, Raffaelli pushed back, arguing that Komen, in response to all the criticism, had removed politics from the grant-making process. “Is it really unclear that we’re changing the policy to address criticism'” he said.

Notice: Komen board member John Raffaelli is explicitly admitting that the decision to cut off Planned Parenthood was politically driven.

Also see:
Komen Founder Admitted in 2010 Memoir That Dropping PP Funding Would Be 'Turning Our Backs' on Poor Women

Apparently, the people in charge of merchandising at the Susan G. Komen Foundation had a little talk with their anti-abortion executives, and today the Komen Foundation is reinstating their Planned Parenthood funding, and apologizing to Planned Parenthood and the American public.

Planned Parenthood has released the following statement in response:

“The outpouring of support for women in need of lifesaving breast cancer screening this week has been astonishing and is a testament to our nation's compassion and sincerity.

“During the last week, millions spontaneously joined a national conversation about lifesaving breast cancer prevention care and reinforced shared values about access to health care for all.  This compassionate outcry in support of those most in need rose above political, ideological, and cultural divides, and will surely be recognized as one of our nation's better moments during a contentious political time.  Planned Parenthood thanks each and every person who has contributed to elevating the importance of breast cancer prevention for so many women in need.

“In recent weeks, the treasured relationship between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood has been challenged, and we are now heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women.  We are enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders and volunteers.  What these past few days have demonstrated is the deep resolve all Americans share in the fight against cancer, and we honor those who are at the helm of this battle.

“Planned Parenthood has been a trusted partner with the Komen Foundation in early cancer detection and prevention services.  In particular, Planned Parenthood helps the Komen Foundation reach vulnerable populations — low-income women, African-American women, and Latinas — especially in rural areas and underserved communities where Planned Parenthood health centers are their only source of health care.  With Komen Foundation grants, over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and more than 6,400 mammogram referrals.  With the outpouring of support over the past week, even more women in need will receive lifesaving breast cancer care.”

But the Komen Foundation has done enormous damage to their reputation, and it's going to be difficult for them to gain back the trust they've lost -- especially since they still have not acknowledged that anti-Planned Parenthood politics played a large part in their decision to cut off funding in the first place.

As you might expect, this news has driven right wing bloggers into a state of apoplectic rage. A look at the crazed wingnut reactions:

Komen Caves to Feminazis | Jammie Wearing Fools
Nets Rush to Defend Planned Parenthood, Ignore Catholic Dispute With Obama | NewsBusters.org
KOMEN FOUNDATION COLLAPSES: Will Fund Abortion Group Planned Parenthood | the Gateway Pundit

The Komen Foundation continues to deny that anti-abortion politics was responsible for their original decision to defund Planned Parenthood, but the right wing blogs and media seem to have no doubt that it was.

Today at the far right fever swamp known as Free Republic, somebody posted a link to our latest article about Ron Paul's connections to the white supremacist subculture, which led to an amusing and revealing sequence of comments.

First, the wingnuts tried to argue that associating with neo-Nazis might not be so bad, and might even be necessary to "turn this country around."

So what. Obama publicly talks to La Raza, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the NAACP.

February 2, 2012 1:48:07 PM PST by Bryanw92 (The solution to fix Congress: Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!)

[...]

“anti-fascist” wing

They gonna hack obozo’s websites next'

February 2, 2012 1:48:17 PM PST by dynachrome ("Our forefathers didn't bury their guns. They buried those that tried to take them.")

[...]

I don’t require hackers to reveal to me that Ron Paul is associated with neo-nazis or neo-fascists. This has been pretty common knowledge around Texas for years and those are the kind of people in his district that keep electing him and supporting him. But what the hell' Maybe we will need that to turn this country around.

February 2, 2012 1:57:31 PM PST by Jukeman (God help us for we are deep in trouble.)

Then, when it finally sank in that they were talking about an article at Little Green Footballs, they dropped this uncomfortable line of discussion and united to attack their common enemy instead:

Let’s keep this an LGF-free site.
No conservative goes there anymore.

February 2, 2012 1:59:55 PM PST by Doulos1 (Bitter Clinger Forever!)

[...]

LGF! My goodness I would rather be Hillary’s towel boy than see Freepers linking LGF!!

February 2, 2012 2:05:11 PM PST by kreitzer

[...]

Little Green Footballs' lol

12 posted on February 2, 2012 2:09:47 PM PST by jpsb

[...]

I’ll put more credence in this when it’s reported somewhere other than LGF.

February 2, 2012 2:16:23 PM PST by Keith in Iowa (Willard Romney, purveyor of the world's finest bullmitt. | FR Class of 1998 |)

[...]

Why are you posting stuff from LGF' You might as well post from Daily Kos or DU.

February 2, 2012 2:28:59 PM PST by Cymbaline ("Allahu Akbar": Arabic for "Nothing To See Here" - Mark Steyn)

[...]

LGF' I hear “Socialist Worker’s Daily” has some interesting pieces, too.

February 2, 2012 3:57:32 PM PST by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)

Looks like Nevada Republicans are starting to get used to the idea of holding their noses and taking their Mitt Romney medicine: Romney Poised to Roll, Poll Shows.

A new poll shows Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney headed for a blowout victory Saturday in Nevada's GOP caucuses.

Romney wins support from 45 percent of Nevada Republicans who said they plan to participate in the caucuses, the survey commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and 8NewsNow said.

Those who self-identify as "Tea Party" pod people are hanging tough with Newt, against the odds, fighting the good fight like our founding fathers would have, tricorne hats and all.

Newt Gingrich is Romney's closest threat with 25 percent backing, thanks in large part to Republicans who say they "strongly support" the tea party movement.

This video is titled "Straight Talk from Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen," the official response to the outrage that followed the Komen Foundation's defunding of Planned Parenthood breast cancer screening programs.

Brinker says their grants to Planned Parenthood were canceled because they have "new standards," which for unstated reasons excluded Planned Parenthood.

Notice: she says all this without once mentioning the words, "Planned Parenthood." And she never explains how Planned Parenthood failed to meet their "new standards."

In the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg has a piece on the controversy, citing three sources within the Komen Foundation who say the "new standards" were adopted specifically to give their anti-abortion VP for public policy, Karen Handel, an excuse to cut off Planned Parenthood: Top Susan G. Komen Official Resigned in Protest Over Planned Parenthood Cave-In.

An entirely avoidable, and deeply regrettable, controversy has been raging this week over the decision by the (formerly highly esteemed) Susan G. Komen For the Cure foundation, the world’s leading breast-cancer research advocacy group, to cut its support for Planned Parenthood, which used Komen dollars (about $600,000 annually) to pay for breast-screening exams for poor people. (The Atlantic’s Nicholas Jackson has an excellent summary of the controversy so far.)

Komen, the marketing juggernaut that brought the world the ubiquitous pink ribbon campaign, says it cut-off Planned Parenthood because of a newly adopted foundation rule prohibiting it from funding any group that is under formal investigation by a government body. (Planned Parenthood is being investigated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, an anti-abortion Florida Republican, who says he is trying to learn if the group spent public money to provide abortions.)

But three 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 Komen grants to Planned Parenthood did not pay for abortion or contraception services, only cancer detection, according to all parties involved.) I’ve tried to reach Handel for comment, and will update this post if I speak with her.

Three sources told me the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood.

Related:
The Koch Brothers - Susan G. Komen Connection

For some reason, it's supposed to mean something that Birther moron Donald Trump has decided to endorse Mitt Romney instead of Newt Gingrich. TIME has an all-caps BREAKING! headline to announce the earth-shaking news: BREAKING: Trump to Back Romney.

I'm sure Mitt Romney's relieved to know he can count on the Birther vote -- a significant segment of the right wing base.

Here's a great little short film about a great little hamburger joint in midtown Manhattan.

Here's a very handy Javascript bookmarklet I whipped up yesterday, when I realized I was often searching the LGF archives for phrases on other sites; for example, when I was writing the post about the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, I wanted to search LGF for my previous posts about Planned Parenthood.

What this bookmarklet does: you can just select any word or phrase (by dragging the mouse over it), then click the bookmarklet in your browser's bookmarks bar and it will open a new window for the LGF Search page, using the text you selected.

To install this handy tool, simply drag the link below to your browser's bookmarks bar and name it 'LGF Search' (if you don't see a bookmarks bar, check your browser's View menu to make sure it's turned on).

Then just select any text on a web page and click the 'LGF Search' button, and up comes a list of all the LGF articles containing that word or phrase. The bookmarklet puts double quotes around your selected text, so you'll see matches for that exact phrase.

So, without further ado, the bookmarklet:

The "anti-fascist" wing of the "Anonymous" hacker group has broken into a website run by the white supremacist American Third Position (A3P), and released a document dump consisting of private forum messages, emails, organizational notes, and other personal information.

The documents show numerous connections between Republican candidate Ron Paul and these racist Neanderthals; they're heavily involved in campaigning for Paul, and according to the messages, have held regular meetings with Ron Paul himself: Ron Paul, the American Third Position Party and Stormfront.

Also revealed: Ron Paul has held meetings with A3P and Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party -- the notorious UK fascist group with neo-Nazi roots.

Ron Paul with white supremacists Don and Derek Black at the 2007 Values Voter debateMembers of the nationalist American Third Position Party (A3P), whose website was defaced by Anonymous, organised Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's meetings and campaigns, according to emails hacked by the collective.

Chairman of the British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin also took part in meetings with Paul and other representatives of A3P.

"According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors," read a statement from Anonymous.

Related:
Ron Paul's Photo-Op With Stormfront

Also see:
Anonymous Claims Neo-Nazi Links to Republican Ron Paul
BNP Links to US Extremists Revealed by Anonymous

The hacked site is mirrored here.

The WSJ published an op-ed several days ago, in which several notable scientists and luminaries claimed there was no need to panic about global warming. They included former NASA astronaut Harrison Schmidt, Burt Rutan, and several other scientists.

The rebuttal today comes from actual climatologists who study climatology, not scientists from other disciplines.

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition' In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Here's an astoundingly tone-deaf statement from Mitt Romney, tailor-made for his rivals to exploit: "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

Obviously, Romney isn't really saying that he doesn't care about people living in poverty; he's arguing that a social safety net exists that can take care of them.

But to phrase it like this, after all the criticism of his immense wealth, shows someone who's incredibly out of touch -- and at the very least, insensitive.

Romney says, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

O'Brien asked him to clarify his remarks saying, "There are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, 'That sounds odd.'"

Romney continues, "We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor.... You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus.... The middle income Americans, they're the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them."

Romney is infamous for the blatant dishonesty of his campaign ads; for example, his very first ad featured a deliberately out-of-context quote from President Obama. And when called on it, Romney's staff refused to retract the ad, gloated instead that it had "worked."

With this gaffe today, Romney can only hope that his opponents behave more ethically than he does.

Big LGF kudos to Democratic Virginia State Senator Janet Howell, who attached a rectal exam amendment to the misogynistic Republican "ultrasound" bill in that state.

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

"We need some gender equity here," she told HuffPost. "The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men'"

The Republican-controlled senate narrowly rejected the amendment Monday by a vote of 21 to 19, but passed the mandatory ultrasound bill in a voice vote. A similar bill in Texas, which physicians say has caused a "bureaucratic nightmare," is currently being challenged in court.

Here's a thread to keep up on breaking news from the Florida GOP primary election.

Currently, with 56% of the vote counted, it's 48% for Romney vs. 31% for Gingrich. It's going to be a landslide for Romney.

And that's it -- Associated Press just called the election for Mitt Romney. A decisive 17-point victory over Newt Gingrich.

A terrible precedent: apparently caving in to the right wing crusade against Planned Parenthood, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has decided to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer prevention. It's a concrete example of how the religious right's reactionary anti-choice agenda is hurting women right now.

NEW YORK – Planned Parenthood Federation of America today expressed deep disappointment in response to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s decision to stop funding breast cancer prevention, screenings and education at Planned Parenthood health centers. Anti-choice groups in America have repeatedly threatened the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for partnering with Planned Parenthood to provide these lifesaving cancer screenings and news articles suggest that the Komen Foundation ultimately succumbed to these pressures.

“We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

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). The Komen Foundation’s leadership did not respond to Planned Parenthood requests to meet with the Komen Board of Directors about the decision.

To ensure that the Komen Foundation’s decision doesn’t jeopardize any woman’s access to lifesaving screenings and services, Planned Parenthood has launched a Breast Health Emergency Fund. The fund will offset the support that 19 local Planned Parenthood programs stand to lose from Komen. The Komen-funded Planned Parenthood programs have helped thousands of women in rural and underserved communities get breast health education, screenings, and referrals for mammograms.

Related:
Pink Bibles Recalled Because of Abortion Cooties

Also see:
Why Komen Defunded Planned Parenthood

The Florida primary may already be over.

Tampa, Florida (CNN) - It's primary day in the Sunshine State, but more than 600,000 people have already voted in Florida's Republican presidential contest. And a new public opinion poll indicates that the ballots already cast may help former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney take the 50 delegates up for grabs in Florida's winner take all primary.

Early voting began statewide ten days ago, and according to figures released Monday afternoon by the Florida Department of State, which runs the division of elections, 293,760 people had already cast ballots. And according to the state, more than 531,000 people requested and were sent absentee ballots, and 338,753 were returned and received by Florida officials.

Add it all together and more than 632,000 votes were already cast before primary day. To put it in perspective, that's more than the 601,577 who voted in the South Carolina primary, and far outpaces the combined 360,000 that took part in the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses.

And according to an American Research Group survey released Tuesday morning, 36% of people questioned said they already voted, and among those, Romney led former House Speaker Newt Gingrich 51% to 29%, with former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania at 12% and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas at 10%.

The latest musicians to get upset at Republicans for appropriating a song without permission: the band Survivor, whose song "Eye of the Tiger" has been used by Newt Gingrich for years.

The federal lawsuit, filed Monday in Chicago by Rude Music Inc., contends Gingrich has used the song since 2009 to herald his arrival at rallies and public events.

The lawsuit says Gingrich uses the song without the permission of Frank Sullivan, who with Jim Peterik, composed the song and copyrighted it in 1982.

The lawsuit asks for an injunction to prevent Gingrich from using the song, as well as damages and attorneys' fees.

I'd actually be in favor of never hearing "Eye of the Tiger" again, for any purpose.

Yesterday in Palm Beach, one of the right wing's deranged heroes, Allen West, took a break from trying to end funding for NPR and repeal the 14th Amendment to deliver an especially nasty speech in which he told President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to "take their message of equality" and "get the hell out of the United States of America."

This is a battlefield that we must stand upon and we need to let president Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, the chairman of the Democrat National Committee [Debbie Wasserman-Schultz], we need to let them know that Florida is not on the table. Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, and take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.

Today, in time-tested right wing demagogue fashion, he's blaming the news media for reporting his words, and simply lying about what he said.

WEST: The other thing is that I did not refer to any person leaving. If you go back and read the transcript of the message that I gave, it was about equality of achievement, it was about economic dependence, it was about enslaving the American entrepreneur’s will and spirit. That message needs to leave this country. And that was what I was referring to. And I think that anyone that sat back and looked at the entirety of that 12 minute, 45 second speech would understand that we’re talking about a contrast of visions of this country.

Related:
Allen West Refuses to Apologize for Ugly Email to Wasserman Schultz
Video: Allen West's Biker Supporters Threaten and Harass Dem Staffer

I'm not sure why Sarah Palin is suddenly all over Fox News with her stream-of-semi-consciousness rants, but here's another hilarious word salad from the half-governor in which she comes up with a great slogan for Newt Gingrich: "Annoy a liberal, vote for Newt!"

President Obama is doing a Google+ "Hangout" right now, taking questions from users via webcam; here's the live feed.

[Event concluded.]

The latest poll from Quinnipiac University is even more bad news for Newt Gingrich: he's behind Mitt Romney in Florida now by 14 points.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a 43 - 29 percent lead over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich among Republican likely voters in Florida, the nation's first big-state presidential primary, according to Quinnipiac University poll released today. Only 7 percent are undecided, but 24 percent say they might change their mind by tomorrow's election.

In today's survey, self-described conservatives go to Romney 40 - 31 percent. He gets 38 percent of white evangelical Christians to Gingrich's 33 percent and wins 40 percent of Tea Party members to Gingrich's 35 percent.

Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum each have 11 percent of likely primary voters today. ...

"Gov. Mitt Romney is headed towards a double-digit victory that touches all the GOP bases," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Romney carries every part of the GOP coalition, including the parts central to Gingrich - self- described conservatives, white evangelical Christians and Tea Party supporters. If this margin holds up tomorrow, it's hard to see where Gingrich goes from here."

As if to illustrate just how incredibly dense some right wing bloggers can be, Andrew Breitbart's editor-in-chief John Nolte picks a fight with ... Kermit and Miss Piggy: Muppets Go Partisan: Kermit and Miss Piggy Trash Fox News.

It's not really a fair fight.

The Fox News segment Kermit and Miss Piggy are responding to (in the video below) can be watched here, and you can see it's a rather innocuous and perfectly valid discussion about the culture. As a response, and nearly a week after the segment aired, the Fox-hating entertainment media (which is all of them) viralized the clip, blew the controversy up into something it really wasn't, and did so because they find it impossible to turn down an opportunity to prove they're one of the minions in the club.

What effectively happened, though, is a week-old Fox Business segment was consequently amplified into the news narrative, which turned the new Muppet film into a political and partisan football. Only our wildly out-of-touch entertainment media minions would think this is a good thing, and as a consequence, a well-reviewed film that opened above expectations entered the divisive culture and political wars and didn't do anywhere near as well at the box office as some had expected and hoped.

That, however, wasn't the fault of the Muppets. That was the immature, clubby entertainment media. The video below, though, puts the Muppets themselves into this controversy, which will only further alienate a very large segment of their audience...

Brilliant.

Miss Piggy tries to back off it some: "If they take what I say seriously..." We get that it was a joke. But parents are careful to ensure that the humor emanating from children's programming fits their values. Hope that doesn't make us humorless and stuffy to the crowd currently waging a jihad against soda pop and Santa Claus.

Ah, the good old wingnut persecution complex, in full flower!

Nolte follows the usual Breitbart rule; he shamelessly distorts the truth about the Fox News fake outrage that led to this exchange, characterizing it as "innocuous and perfectly valid."

In fact, it was a batshit crazy, typically paranoid show featuring Fox News's resident racist, Eric Bolling, in a deranged rant about a secret plot by the Muppets to indoctrinate children to be socialists and hate capitalism.

Only a right wing tool like Nolte would ever describe this as "innocuous."

Related:
Kermit and Miss Piggy vs. Fox News
Breitbart Editor-in-Chief John Nolte's Sick Violent Fantasies

Today's insanity break: a spectacular Oscar-nominated animated short film by Moonbot Studios, another gem discovered at Vimeo.

Nate Silver is now projecting mega-millionaire Mitt Romney to win the Florida GOP primary; Newt Gingrich's surge has evaporated.

Is it another case of the dreaded Sarah Palin Kiss of Death'

The loonier far right celebrities are lining up to show their support for Newt Gingrich -- Chuck Norris, Sarah Palin, and now Mr. 999, Herman Cain.

WEST PALM BEACH — Herman Cain will be a surprise guest at tonight’s Lincoln Day Dinner at the Kravis Center to endorse Newt Gingrich, the Palm Beach Post has confirmed.

In my syndicated column this week, I take a break from politics to ask: Just who are the happiest wives in America'

(Hint: Ann Romney, Rick Santorum, and Carol Paul are all examples).

Keep reading this post . . .

Not long ago, we were told by our intelligence services that Iran was not really building a bomb and that such rumors were the stuff of neo-con conspiracists and more cooked and partisan data. Iran, we rubes were additionally lectured, did not work with al-Qaeda, given that Sunnis and Shiites hated infidels more than each other. And the idea that it would conduct covert operations inside the U.S. was surely more Bush-Cheney scarifying. A new outreach/reset instead would lead to “face-to-face” negotiations, now that swaggering George Bush had left and laureate Barack Obama had reminded the Iranians of his Nobel Prize and non-traditional post-racial heritage. Popular unrest in the streets of Teheran in 2009 was either non-authentic and going nowhere, or at least not properly our right to encourage — given Obama’s careful reach-out to the theocracy, and his deep knowledge of the long and contorted history of U.S. interventions into Iranian internal affairs. Rather than worry about a supposed Iranian bomb, we might try instead to envision the Middle East from the Iranian perspective, hemmed in as it was by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and aware that other potentially hostile states like Israel and Pakistan were nuclear. In any case, a sophisticated reach-out deal with Putin’s Russia would result in behind-the scenes help to stop Iranian nuclear ambitions. Barring that, there was no real reason to believe that a nuclear Iran was not subject to traditional laws of deterrence. And even if the crisis deepened, a new commitment to U.N. multilateralism would engage the U.N. Security Council in the sort of collective action so sorely lacking during the derelict Bush administration.

Keep reading this post . . .

An update on the silencing of the chaplains post from earlier: A spokesman for the Army tells National Review Online:

the Army became aware of the Archbishop’s letter last Friday (Jan. 27) and was concerned that the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting. The Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit.  Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass.  The Army greatly appreciates the Archbishop’s consideration of the military’s perspective and is satisfied with the resolution upon which they agreed.

Keep reading this post . . .

I mentioned earlier this week that Marco Rubio delivered a beautiful speech at a Susan B. Anthony List event this week, one that goes straight to the potential vice-presidential vetting file. But more than that, he expressed an urgency and issued a challenge. These are shameful years, 39 years of legal abortion, and history, he contended, will see it that way. The choice is ours: Do we want to be a moral beacon or not, protecting the fundamental right of life. Video is now up on the Susan B. Anthony List website. 

The Susan G. Komen foundation succumbed today to a relentless barrage of political bullying, a fact that is not only sad news for those who cherish the sanctity and dignity of all life, but also for all of us who believe that a private philanthropic organization shouldn’t be subjected to such harassment.

That the Komen foundation apologized for its decision to halt contributions to Planned Parenthood is another illustration that political correctness is running amok.

Keep reading this post . . .

In Catholic churches across the country, parishioners were read letters from the pulpit this weekend from bishops in their diocese about the mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services giving Catholics a year before they’ll be required to start violating their consciences on insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs. But not in the Army. 

A statement released this afternoon — which happens to be the 67th anniversary of the sinking of the USS Dorchester, on which four chaplains lost their lives – from the Archdiocese for Military Services explains:

Keep reading this post . . .

Today the Susan G. Komen foundation issued a statement indicating that they will continue to fund existing grants to Planned Parenthood and preserve Planned Parenthood’s right to apply for grants in the future. Numerous mainstream media outlets are gleefully reporting that the Komen foundation has reversed its previous decision to defund Planned Parenthood. However, a close reading of the statement indicates that this is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, commentators would be foolish to describe this week’s events as either a win for Planned Parenthood or as a setback for the pro-life movement.

First the Komen foundation had always planned to fund the Planned Parenthood grants that it had already approved. Furthermore, today’s statement did not award or guarantee any new grants to Planned Parenthood. They just simply stated that Planned Parenthood is eligible to apply for grants in the future. Of course the future funding decisions of the foundation will certainly be of interest to pro-lifers.

Keep reading this post . . .

Nice catch by Jonathan Tobin at Commentary:

However, there was something missing from the Times report of Khamenei’s speech that was reported elsewhere. Other accounts noted that in addition to threatening the United States, Khamenei said this: “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.” While we don’t know how or why a mention of this element of the speech managed to get excised from the account in the Times, it’s a question worth pondering.

Keep reading this post . . .

That’s the title of a post over at Gawker responding, in its way, to my earlier thoughts on the Komen backlash. (For the uninitiated, Gawker’s imperative role on the Internet is that of the mother bird, partially digesting the work of others with the enzymes of bored irony and the gastric juices of sarcasm, and regurgitating stub articles fit for the consumption of the shrieking, featherless hatchlings that comprise my doomed generation.)

But the ‘conservatives think free speech only applies to money’ canard won’t cut it here. I never say, or imply, that anything PP or its allies have done is illegal or should be. Rather I hold with Buckley, who liked to note that not everything legal is reputable, and my language was normative, not juridical. The words I used were “creepy” and “despicable.” In case it was unclear why I think those words apply, let me be more explicit.

Keep reading this post . . .

Reading some of the reaction to Dan’s post – especially this absurd little offering – one would get the false impression that he’d criticized the First Amendment. Aside from this being patently untrue, such an accusation betrays a bizarre way of looking at the world, and one I am more accustomed to in England where people being lambasted for having said something stupid inexplicably respond, “but it’s my freedom of speech.” Yes, it is. And it’s mine to tell you you’re wrong, too. The right to speak freely does not include the right to be inured from reaction.

In America, we enjoy a freedom of speech that is pretty much unlimited. But what does that mean' It means that, unlike in most other parts of the world, we can’t be arrested and prosecuted for expressing ourselves. It also means that we are free, in the most part, to contribute (or not to contribute) to organizations that share our aims. It does not mean that everything said — or spent — is virtuous. Nor that we are to be respected for what we say. When the collected foot soldiers of the Planned Parenthood Appreciation Society become angry with Komen for exercising their free right to cease funding another group, we can criticize them for their reaction without going anywhere near their rights. That is precisely what Dan did in his post. He criticized the bullying, gangsterish tactics, not the speech itself. With these things, there is no cutoff point: Speech can go around and around and around, until we are criticizing them for criticizing us for criticizing them for criticizing us and so forth. That’s America. That’s liberty. Boisterous, noisy, often harsh. But still free.

Keep reading this post . . .

This just in: The Federal Election Commission has certified the first presidential candidate eligible to receive federal matching funds for the primary elections.

So which candidate in this hotly contested GOP slugfest will get that first infusion of federal cash' Is it Romney, the candidate with the most delegates so far, but who is now struggling in the press after a series of public missteps' Is it Newt Gingrich, who surprised Romney in South Carolina but flagged in Florida' Is it Santorum, the late-declared winner of Iowa who still doggedly pursues the nomination'

Keep reading this post . . .

Though I’m not involved in the abortion debate, I do raise money for my own non-profit — can I also start a hate campaign when a donor decides to stop giving money' It happens all the time — the next generation of a family takes over and changes the focus of the foundation’s giving, for instance. Who do the Planned Parenthood people think they are' It takes real chutzpah to think, and announce, that you’re entitled to someone else’s money. (But then, they are Democrats, after all.)

Taranto at the WSJ made a good point today:

Keep reading this post . . .

The lead NYT op-ed today is about how Rochester has prospered despite the decline of Eastman Kodak, formerly the city’s marquee employer. I’m delighted Rochester is prospering and wish its inhabitants all future success. But in laying out the reasons, the author, a professor at the University of Rochester, keeps coming back to the same source:

Over the last five years it [the university] has received more than $1.9 billion in research money, most of it from the federal government, which has in turn fueled local growth beyond the campus gates. …

Keep reading this post . . .

We have a predictions symposium. And here she is: 

Who would I choose' Well, for what it’s worth, just my two-cents — because my pick really isn’t worth a hill of beans and I trust Americans to choose their own favorite — I say, in order to keep this competitive battle going, to continue the needed vetting and debate, if I were there, I’d vote for Eli!

Keep reading this post . . .

Time magazine is running a symposium on the state of the conservative movement. There are thirteen entries, including one by Rich Lowry and another by me.

There is much of interest here, but let me mention Richard Land’s contribution. He distinguishes between “the hard conservatives of the Goldwater, Buckley variety who are more libertarian in their beliefs” and “the soft conservatives represented by former President George W. Bush,” who think government “can be used to empower people to make decisions to improve their lives.” He thinks their struggle “will continue for the foreseeable future.”

Keep reading this post . . .

Lance Armstrong gives them $100,000.

(This has been amended since posting.)

Florida congressman Cliff Stearns is responsible for the congressional investigation that has been demonized in recent days. In a statement, he responds to the Komen chaos:

In response to the original decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to stop funding grants to Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood raised the equivalent funds within 24 hours. Although I wasn’t involved in either decision, it is clear that Planned Parenthood does not need the Komen funding.  I believe that Planned Parenthood could be, and should be, totally self sufficient, as with so many other non-profit organizations, and spare America’s hard-pressed taxpayers the $487 million Planned Parenthood received in public funding.  As Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I will continue the investigation into Planned Parenthood’s use of taxpayer funds. This oversight is necessary because of its record of fraud discovered through state Medicaid audits and its other abuses and illegal activities, such as ignoring state reporting requirements on sexual abuse.

Keep reading this post . . .

Jack, that piece is a solid contribution from someone who has already demonstrated some leadership and vision on the issue. Worth reading even if you happen to be someone not particularly enthused by him. 

From Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier Thursday, February 2, 2012

On Leon Panetta saying there is a “strong likelihood” that Israel will attack Iran in April, May, or June:

Keep reading this post . . .

Jay — lovely post about the qualities one looks for in a president, particularly as regards ambition. It is amazing to think how times change, though. At the time of the Founding, and when the Founders were still alive and variously vying for the presidency, it was seen as uncouth to make it clear one hoped for public office. Thomas Jefferson was particularly good at pretending that he had no interest in public life — and may have even convinced himself — but he was as ambitious as anyone; his joyous reaction to his eventual election in 1801 certainly carried a genuine sense of relief that the stasis had been resolved peacefully and the republic was safe for a while, but I can’t help but read into it an unsubtle belief that any nation that had him at its helm was likely to prosper.

Now, we criticize candidates for not showing that they want it enough! McCain was criticized for being lackluster, as were Bob Dole and Al Gore, and Romney seems to have won himself more fans recently by fighting down low with Gingrich. (Whatever you think of Newt, one could never accuse him of being a wallflower.) This is perhaps a testament to the increased power of the presidency — we seem to want someone who can fight hard at home and abroad for his agenda and his country — and the way in which presidents have to run for election in a vast and more democratic country, but were the notoriously dutiful (and at least ostensibly reluctant) George Washington to witness the way in which politicans put themselves forward for office nowadays, I can’t help but imagine he’d wince.

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post: 

I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

Keep reading this post . . .

Mona, my consolation watching MSNBC last night: This was an old guard feminist establishment leading the media shakedown. And the shrill PR is coming from a movement on its last legs — we just increasingly know too much, through documentation, through experience. The truth is out there. 

Kathryn,

We can never forget that organizations like NOW and AAUW are self-appointed spokesmen for women, and do not represent the views of most women. Here, for example, is a recent Gallup poll on abortion. Those calling themselves pro-life outnumber (slightly) those calling themselves pro-choice. 

Last week we Republican senators had an extraordinary experience that millions of Americans have had and will have in the future: We spent a day at Mount Vernon, George Washington’s home, which is not more than about 40 minutes from the nation’s capital.

Even in the middle of winter, it is a beautiful, historic setting. It is hard to imagine why George Washington and Martha Washington would ever want to leave the place.

Keep reading this post . . .

Mona, last night on the Ed Schulz show, Terry O’Neill of NOW, declared that Komen was simply no longer a women’s health organization. Who made NOW the arbiter of such a thing' It is such an insult to the hard-working doctors giving actual care to women who have cancer, doing life-saving research to try to get to Komen’s goal of ending breast cancer — who aren’t interested in having media wars with the abortion industry. 

The only thing that seems clear is that Komen is desperately trying to make the campaign to kill Komen stop — and that is what the venom from Planned Parenthood in recent days has been aimed at. 

Komen, of course, has never said this week: We will never do business with Planned Parenthood again (as I would love them to do, but I was and am under no delusions). And in this statement they appear to be somewhat consistent there . . . maybe: They have tightened funding guidelines and thus Planned Parenthood did not look eligible, but that does not mean PP necessarily will not get grants in the future. 

Keep reading this post . . .

It’s extremely disappointing that Komen has caved. But it’s hardly surprising given the onslaught they’ve endured over the course of the last few days. The American Association of University Women announced that it would no longer include Komen among community-service opportunities for young women, more than two dozen members of Congress signed a letter urging Komen to reverse its decision, and the press has had a hissy fit of major proportions.

But the language of the climb down is truly infuriating. Komen CEO Nancy Brinker released a statement saying: “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”

Keep reading this post . . .

Facebook’s IPO will be good news for a whole host of reasons. In particular, users should be happy that the company will become a much more public-facing entity. This is especially important for the ongoing debate about privacy in the digital age.

It’s interesting spending time with Facebook’s financial filings. One risk factor the firm notes:

Keep reading this post . . .

Komen really should have simply said: Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms; our mission dictates we be more direct in our funding support. Komen did not do that because then Komen would sound like a pro-life organization, because only pro-life organizations tend to point that out. The thing is, it also happens to be true!

Yesterday a number of people forwarded me this op-ed from Terry Jeffrey of CNS News, claiming that, as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney “decided Catholic hospitals would be required under his interpretation of a new state law to give rape victims a drug that can induce abortions.” The claim is salient in part because of the Obama administration’s looming requirement that even religious institutions must soon offer coverage for contraception (including potentially abortifacient emergency contraceptions) — a requirement that will soon trigger a number of legal challenges and is set to become a key issue in the 2012 presidential race.

Mr. Jeffrey’s thesis lies in the twists and turns of Governor Romney’s battle with his own legislature over expanded access to “Plan B” emergency contraception (“EC”), drugs that can prevent pregnancy after rape but can also potentially act as abortifacients by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. The legislature passed legislation mandating that hospitals — including the state’s Catholic hospitals — administer EC. Governor Romney vetoed that legislation and the next day took to the pages of the Boston Globe to explain his pro-life stance:

Keep reading this post . . .