After a weekend filled with Super Bowl hoopla, snow shoveling for some, and another GOP primary contest - the Nevada caucus, which Mr. Romney won handily - America is once again returning to business this morning.
Sadly, there's still a bit of stuff to clean up from last week.
In the middle of the latest gaffe from Mitt Romney, and the preparation for the big Super Bowl game, the Susan G. Komen Foundation made a major mistake pulling funding from Planned Parenthood, which we initially focused on last week. Since our initial whack at the story, two things have changed.
The first major change was that the Komen Foundation partially stepped back from its initial strike at Planned Parenthood on Friday, after the Foundation's actions raised the hackles of millions of people. Upon further review, Komen's claim that they're returning funding to Planned Parenthood appears to be more spin than a real retraction. We're not entirely surprised their so-called advisors got them into this mess - but deciding to pull the funding isn't the main reason for our anger at Komen.
The second major change since last Wednesday was that most of our media colleagues missed the real story in the Planned Parenthood/Komen battle. They got caught up in the complicated secondary topics and didn't really address the real problem with Komen's actions - which we will.
We understand the subjects of abortion, birth control, cancer, and religion are individually complicated topics that raise the ire of many Americans - let alone when any or all of those topics cross paths.
Just on the issue of abortion, there are far more than just two sides. For example, we know of no one who is truly pro-abortion - meaning that they think Americans should have more abortions. We do know individuals who are anti-choice and anti-abortion - meaning they don't want anyone to be able to have abortions (regardless of the fact that the right to choose what to do with one's own body is settled law). We also know those who are pro-choice yet anti-abortion - meaning they'd prefer no one had an abortion, but if a women makes that choice it should be safe and rare. We even know a few people who are truly pro-life. That means they're against the death penalty, war, euthanasia, and abortion, and are heavily in favor of helping the poor get medical care, including breast cancer screenings. Then there are those who claim they're pro-life, but think war and the death penalty are a-okay. We know a few of them too.
You can see from that confusing array of accurate labels why the soundbite media had such a problem with the Planned Parenthood/Komen story.
The biggest single simple lesson most in the media missed, and that the Komen Foundation reminded us all of, is the same lesson that has been taught in American politics repeatedly: the sin isn't as much the action, as it is the coverup.
If the Komen Foundation had come out and admitted they were giving up their carefully cultivated neutral political facade - that they still wanted to to fight cancer but wanted to do it from an extremist conservative point of view - we still think many millions of people would have been disappointed in them. However, we don't think those Americans would be nearly as angry.
What the Komen Foundation did by trying to hide their true intentions under the proverbial cover of fighting cancer was to betray the trust many millions of people formerly had placed in them. Instead, they raised the hackles of millions more and temporarily made the issue of fighting cancer into a political beach ball.
Organizations that want to fight cancer from a left or right political stance may certainly do so - and we welcome their help from all sides. What organizations should NOT do is attempt to use something as important as fighting cancer as a shield for their organization's political views.
The truth is easy. Cancer is not political. It harms all who are affected by it. The goal of beating cancer is one we can all agree on.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Friday Funday: Super? Or Just Right?
As our staff heads into a well-earned weekend, we had a few reasons to chuckle, when we somewhat accidentally noted it was Super Bowl weekend - and none of us had any super significant plans.
In fact, back in Nebraska, our plan for the weekend is pretty much to make sure we stay warm - and inside, if at all possible. We went to the store yesterday - like everyone else also seemed to be doing - got our provisions, and hurried home.
In DC, we're not worried about suffering through a midwinter storm this weekend. The NFL fans that we know here who support our local team - the Redskins - have gotten used to losing for many years now. While there will be plenty of parties planned to watch the big game, most of those we know about aren't going to have fans who have much emotionally invested in the outcome.
Down in South Florida - or New York South, as we jokingly call it - the huge number of people originally from New York has the area hopping with excitement over the game. There are more than a few snowbirds from New England also spending the winter down here in Florida. They seem just as amped up for the big event as their counterparts from New York.
For millions of Americans, the Super Bowl is a major television event each year, regardless of where they live. Like most Super Bowl broadcasts over the last 20 years, this year's event is set to draw a record audience, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%-46% of households.
What the ratings figures never say is how many of those people watch the game for the commercials - and we have to admit that part of the draw for every member of our staff is the commercials too. As creative people, we often like to see what other creative people put together for TV ads - or what dreck companies have paid millions to put on the air.
We may watch the halftime show featuring Madonna - though it's just as likely we may take that time to go take care of personal business, instead. Let's just say we'd rather see the University of Nebraska Marching Band at halftime.
The key to enjoying the weekend for all of us - no matter how we join in the real national pasttime or what those in our local neighborhoods will be doing - is that we will be doing it in moderation.
Not too many people, or too loud a location. Maybe a few of our favorite foods, but certainly not a massive smorgasbord. And there's no way we're going to sit through all six hours of pre-game broadcast, plus the two-to-three hour game, thirty minute halftime concert, and who-knows-how-long post-game wrapup.
We may each have comfortable chairs, good friends, and good food - but a ridiculously long day of watching a bunch of blowhards filled with hot air babble about the upcoming event for hours on end, then watching the actual event, capped off by the same blowhards recapping the event we just saw, doesn't have the kind of appeal to our staff that it might for others.
After all, we've had to watch more than enough GOP Presidential Debates already this past year, thank you very much.
Enjoy the weekend - and may your favorite team win.
In fact, back in Nebraska, our plan for the weekend is pretty much to make sure we stay warm - and inside, if at all possible. We went to the store yesterday - like everyone else also seemed to be doing - got our provisions, and hurried home.
In DC, we're not worried about suffering through a midwinter storm this weekend. The NFL fans that we know here who support our local team - the Redskins - have gotten used to losing for many years now. While there will be plenty of parties planned to watch the big game, most of those we know about aren't going to have fans who have much emotionally invested in the outcome.
Down in South Florida - or New York South, as we jokingly call it - the huge number of people originally from New York has the area hopping with excitement over the game. There are more than a few snowbirds from New England also spending the winter down here in Florida. They seem just as amped up for the big event as their counterparts from New York.
For millions of Americans, the Super Bowl is a major television event each year, regardless of where they live. Like most Super Bowl broadcasts over the last 20 years, this year's event is set to draw a record audience, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%-46% of households.
What the ratings figures never say is how many of those people watch the game for the commercials - and we have to admit that part of the draw for every member of our staff is the commercials too. As creative people, we often like to see what other creative people put together for TV ads - or what dreck companies have paid millions to put on the air.
We may watch the halftime show featuring Madonna - though it's just as likely we may take that time to go take care of personal business, instead. Let's just say we'd rather see the University of Nebraska Marching Band at halftime.
The key to enjoying the weekend for all of us - no matter how we join in the real national pasttime or what those in our local neighborhoods will be doing - is that we will be doing it in moderation.
Not too many people, or too loud a location. Maybe a few of our favorite foods, but certainly not a massive smorgasbord. And there's no way we're going to sit through all six hours of pre-game broadcast, plus the two-to-three hour game, thirty minute halftime concert, and who-knows-how-long post-game wrapup.
We may each have comfortable chairs, good friends, and good food - but a ridiculously long day of watching a bunch of blowhards filled with hot air babble about the upcoming event for hours on end, then watching the actual event, capped off by the same blowhards recapping the event we just saw, doesn't have the kind of appeal to our staff that it might for others.
After all, we've had to watch more than enough GOP Presidential Debates already this past year, thank you very much.
Enjoy the weekend - and may your favorite team win.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Tax Cutting Off Their Head
It's been a while since we trained our collective ire on the idiot Governor of Nebraska, Dave Heineman - who we doubt, after that comment, will ever invite us to any events at the Governor's mansion. If our goal was to grow a better relationship with him, you could even say our initial comment would be akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Of course, after the proposals Gov. Heineman came out with in last month's 'State of the State address', we think he knows all too well what cutting off one's nose to spite one's own face feels like.
In case you missed it, Nebraska's Governor Dave Heineman gave Nebraska's 'State of the State' address to open the 2012 legislative session in Nebraska. In his address, Heineman proposed MASSIVE tax cuts, including the elimination of the Inheritance Tax, as well as cuts to Medicare.
In short, the Governor's proposals are ridiculous, especially in light of the massive budget cuts and fiscal struggles the state has faced over the last few years.
We're willing to acknowledge the Governor's claims about Nebraska's overall economy - that, in comparison to many places in the U.S. that took a significantly harder hit than Nebraska did during the Lesser Depression, Nebraska has a relatively low unemployment rate, a balanced budget, and a respectable cash reserve.
That doesn't mean that Nebraska's cities and counties are willing or able to take a massive hit to their own revenue streams at this point in time. Yet, by proposing to get rid of the Inheritance Tax, slash corporate taxes, and cut other tax rates, that's exactly what Heineman is suggesting Nebraskans do; hurt their own counties and towns, so that well-to-do Nebraskans wouldn't have to pay as many of those pesky tax dollars to the state.
Of course, their local property taxes would have to go up with double-digit increases. But, hey...! Governor Heineman and the state senators couldn't then be blamed for all those damn high taxes! If road maintenance, or courthouse hours would need to be eliminated? That wouldn't be the Governor's problem.
If our tone seems a bit sarcastic today, excuse us if we're both angered and confused.
The reasons for anger should be easy to see. The Governor's proposals are ludicrous, and would only really make political sense if he was attempting to appeal strongly to the extremists on the far right of his party, in a year when he was running for re-election.
Heineman is term-limited, however - which is where our confusion sets in.
For a major political figure who can't go any higher in Nebraska politics, Heineman appears to be carrying an unusual amount of political water for the Republican Party. If we didn't know better, we might even think Heineman's true goal was a cut of a different kind - like a cut of political power at the national level of his party.
To many Nebraskans, even Republicans, that tactic reeks of the same cut-and-run political style other former famous Nebraska Republicans have used to get themselves cushy jobs outside of the state.
Regardless of what Heineman's true intent is, we hope that Nebraskans look hard at the damage that has already been done by years of tax cutting, without investing in our communities.
We just hope they don't buy the ridiculous slab of spoiled bacon the Governor is trying to peddle.
Of course, after the proposals Gov. Heineman came out with in last month's 'State of the State address', we think he knows all too well what cutting off one's nose to spite one's own face feels like.
In case you missed it, Nebraska's Governor Dave Heineman gave Nebraska's 'State of the State' address to open the 2012 legislative session in Nebraska. In his address, Heineman proposed MASSIVE tax cuts, including the elimination of the Inheritance Tax, as well as cuts to Medicare.
In short, the Governor's proposals are ridiculous, especially in light of the massive budget cuts and fiscal struggles the state has faced over the last few years.
We're willing to acknowledge the Governor's claims about Nebraska's overall economy - that, in comparison to many places in the U.S. that took a significantly harder hit than Nebraska did during the Lesser Depression, Nebraska has a relatively low unemployment rate, a balanced budget, and a respectable cash reserve.
That doesn't mean that Nebraska's cities and counties are willing or able to take a massive hit to their own revenue streams at this point in time. Yet, by proposing to get rid of the Inheritance Tax, slash corporate taxes, and cut other tax rates, that's exactly what Heineman is suggesting Nebraskans do; hurt their own counties and towns, so that well-to-do Nebraskans wouldn't have to pay as many of those pesky tax dollars to the state.
Of course, their local property taxes would have to go up with double-digit increases. But, hey...! Governor Heineman and the state senators couldn't then be blamed for all those damn high taxes! If road maintenance, or courthouse hours would need to be eliminated? That wouldn't be the Governor's problem.
If our tone seems a bit sarcastic today, excuse us if we're both angered and confused.
The reasons for anger should be easy to see. The Governor's proposals are ludicrous, and would only really make political sense if he was attempting to appeal strongly to the extremists on the far right of his party, in a year when he was running for re-election.
Heineman is term-limited, however - which is where our confusion sets in.
For a major political figure who can't go any higher in Nebraska politics, Heineman appears to be carrying an unusual amount of political water for the Republican Party. If we didn't know better, we might even think Heineman's true goal was a cut of a different kind - like a cut of political power at the national level of his party.
To many Nebraskans, even Republicans, that tactic reeks of the same cut-and-run political style other former famous Nebraska Republicans have used to get themselves cushy jobs outside of the state.
Regardless of what Heineman's true intent is, we hope that Nebraskans look hard at the damage that has already been done by years of tax cutting, without investing in our communities.
We just hope they don't buy the ridiculous slab of spoiled bacon the Governor is trying to peddle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)