con-tem-plate

The nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates — creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.

Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress — a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups.

…

“We’re kind of reeling,” said Patrick Hurd, who is CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia — recipient of a 2010 grant from Komen — and whose wife, Betsi, is a veteran of several Komen fundraising races and is currently battling breast cancer.

“It sounds almost trite, going through this with Betsi, but cancer doesn’t care if you’re pro-choice, anti-choice, progressive, conservative,” Hurd said. “Victims of cancer could care less about people’s politics.”

Read the rest here.

Not giving my money to Susan G. Komen anymore, it’s going to go straight to Planned Parenthood, cute pink ribbons and Yoplait yogurt be damned!

Update:  Here’s how to help.

From NYT Op Ed:

FEW people realize that getting pregnant can mean losing your job. Imagine a woman who, seven months into her pregnancy, is fired from her position as a cashier because she needed a few extra bathroom breaks. Or imagine another pregnant employee who was fired from her retail job after giving her supervisors a doctor’s note requesting she be allowed to refrain from heavy lifting and climbing ladders during the month and a half before her maternity leave…

Federal and state laws ban discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace. And amendments to the Americans With Disabilities Act require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees (including most employees with medical complications arising from pregnancies) who need them to do their jobs. But because pregnancy itself is not considered a disability, employers are not obligated to accommodate most pregnant workers in any way.

As a result, thousands of pregnant women are pushed out of jobs that they are perfectly capable of performing — either put on unpaid leave or simply fired — when they request an accommodation to help maintain a healthy pregnancy. Many are single mothers or a family’s primary breadwinner. They are disproportionately low-income women, often in physically demanding jobs with little flexibility.

Read the entire article here.

This is quite unconscionable. So glad that State Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat from Manhattan, and Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther, a Democrat from Sullivan County, have introduced legislation to fill this gap in New York.

But this is a law that should exist in all states!

There has been a lot or turmoil over the ACA, or Obamacare, as it’s commonly referred to. But one thing that cannot be denied is that it has been successful, at least the parts of it that have been implemented, since a lot of the act’s different provisions won’t take effect until 2014.

From Steve Benen:

The health care law

(1) is combating fraud and abuse, which in turns saves Americans quite a bit of money;

(2) has brought coverage to 2.5 million young adults;

(3) is delivering major savings to seniors on prescription drugs;

(4) is giving a boost to small businesses through ACA tax credits;

(5) has slowed the growth of Medicare spending;

(6) has provided new treatment options for cancer patients; and

(7) has offered new coverage protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

These are tangible, real-world benefits, making a meaningful difference in people’s lives.

It’s a shame that we don’t hear more about this.

This was such a timely article, that I had to share it here. We are all looking for that elusive state of mind called happiness.  But happiness can be learned and nurtured through things that are in our control. Take this list from The Good News Network:

1. Express gratitude. – When you appreciate what you have, what you have appreciates in value.  Kinda cool right?  So basically, being grateful for the goodness that is already evident in your life will bring you a deeper sense of happiness.  …
2. Cultivate optimism. – Winners have the ability to manufacture their own optimism.  No matter what the situation, the successful diva is the chick who will always find a way to put an optimistic spin on it.  …
   

3. Avoid over-thinking and social comparison. – Comparing yourself to someone else can be poisonous.  If we’re somehow better than the person that we’re comparing ourselves to, it gives us an unhealthy sense of superiority.  Our ego inflates – KABOOM – our inner Kanye West comes out!…If you feel called to compare yourself to something, compare yourself to an earlier version of yourself.
4. Practice acts of kindness. – Performing an act of kindness releases serotonin in your brain.  (Serotonin is a substance that has TREMENDOUS health benefits, including making us feel more blissful.)  Selflessly helping someone is a super powerful way to feel good inside.  What’s even cooler about this kindness kick is that not only will you feel better, but so will people watching the act of kindness.  How extraordinary is that?  …
5. Learn to forgive. – Harboring feelings of hatred is horrible for your well-being.  You see, your mind doesn’t know the difference between past and present emotion.  When you ‘hate’ someone, and you’re continuously thinking about it, those negative emotions are eating away at your immune system.  You put yourself in a state of suckerism (technical term) and it stays with you throughout your day.

Read the rest of the article here.

–The amount Texas taxpayers paid for a security detail to travel with governor Rick Perry from September through November during his presidential campaign.

via Swampland

via Not Martha

Hamburgers
   
If you think hamburgers are an all-American food, think again. People as far back as Genghis Kahn were eating thin patties of ground mutton, and the modern hamburger got its name from the German port city of Hamburg. Street vendors in New York began selling “Hamburg Steak” to sailors and immigrants, and it wasn’t long before the classic patties were put between slices of bread. One story goes that a man named Fletcher Davis began serving up what we call hamburgers in Athens, Texas in the 1880s. He then took his creation to the 1904 World’s Fair and the rest is history. That is, unless you talk to relatives of Louis Lassen, who claim their ancestor invented the burger in 1900 when he put scraps of ground meat between some bread for easy eating. Who you chose to believe is up to you, but the Library of Congress agrees with the Lassen version. Regardless of who invented it, the one thing we do know is that eating hamburgers remains one of the most delicious ways to ingest every unhealthy thing imaginable. And we wouldn’t have it any other way. Great. Now we’re hungry.

Read the rest…

That’s what the quack over at Faux News said - aka, Faux spin as it starts…

“Fox News Medical A-Team” Dr. Keith Ablow analyzes Newt’s marital history: 

[H]ere’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages: 

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him. 

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married. 

3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.  Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation. Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

I am not making this up. Read more here

Steve Benen writes… The next question, of course, is whether SOPA is actually going anywhere. As we discussed over the weekend, sponsors of the House and Senate bills ran into fierce and unexpected opposition, largely derailing their legislative plans. The White House didn’t issue a veto threat, per se, but the administration’s chief technology officials concluded, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” The statement added that any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.” The White House’s position left SOPA and PIPA, at least in their current form, effectively dead.

…

House Republican leaders signaled that SOPA probably won’t even reach the floor for a vote and would have to undergo significant changes before it proceeds.

…

The state of play in the Senate is a little different — a PIPA vote is likely next Tuesday — but even in the upper chamber, the bill is quickly losing friends. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) announced his opposition yesterday, and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a former co-sponsor of PIPA, is also now against it.

Politico characterized the bills as being “on life support,” with passage “in serious doubt.” There’s talk of trying to improve the legislation to satisfy critics’ concerns, but Politico added that both sides are “pessimistic that there will be a palatable compromise any time soon.”

Update: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who had also supported PIPA, announced his opposition to the bill this morning.

Read Steve’s entire post here.

— Looks like things are moving in the right direction.

I would like to properly introduce you to a man about whom you’ve heard much — especially from his enemies and those who prefer a continuation of the status quo — but at whom you might wish to take a second look, and whom you might consider supporting for president.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an immediate end to our current and ongoing wars abroad.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an end to predator drone attacks by the United States military, which kill innocent civilians and foment growing hatred of America.

…

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an entirely revamped Middle East policy, in which the U.S. will no longer subsidize the oppression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports either abolishing or fundamentally reforming the Federal Reserve system, and he opposed bailing out the banks with public funds.

Unlike Barack Obama, this individual opposes government spying and believes in absolute freedom of speech and the press, and as he puts it, “reduced government intrusion into our lives.”

Clearly, with such a progressive vision, no one of the left would want to pass up the opportunity to support a candidate such as this for president! Surely it would be a vast improvement over Barack Obama, that Wall Street- friendly, imperialistic, war-monger, who promised to close Guantanamo but didn’t, among other unforgivable crimes.

So by all means, let’s get behind someone who will close down the national security state, stand up for civil liberties, and stop handing out money to bankers.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the left, I give you your perfect candidate for 2012:

David Duke.

With the exception of his views on the drug war, David shares every single view of Paul’s that can be considered progressive or left in orientation. Every single one.

That any liberal, progressive or leftist could waste so much as a kind word about someone as this is mind-boggling. There are not many litmus tests for being a progressive in good standing in this country, but one would think, if there were, that surely to God, civil rights would be one of them.

Please read the entire essay by Tim Wise. over at here.  And then ask yourself what a Ron Paul presidency would really mean.  I hope you understand what is at stake.

(Reuters Health) - A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.

I need to drown my sorrow…

Updated:  Or maybe this?

Great Scot! It’s whisky in a can … eight shots for $5 to be sold in the United States.

Performer Janelle Monae embraces President Barack Obama

The president attended a concert and rally Wednesday afternoon at the UIC Forum featuring R&B/Soul singer Janelle Monae. CSI NY Star Hill Harper will also be here to rev up the crowd.

In an NBC interview this morning, Romney was asked to explain his claim - made in his New Hampshire victory speech - as to whether ” concerns about Wall Street conduct and inequality are driven by “envy.”

Here’s part of the exchange:

QUESTIONER: When you said that we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy, I’m curious about the word envy. Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?

ROMNEY: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent, you have opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.

QUESTIONER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?

ROMNEY: I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made it part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail.

So, not only does he refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the income divide, he thinks this very important discussion needs to happen behind closed doors and and not in the public sphere.  How anyone but the 1% can support him is beyond me.

Read more here.

“The Tax Policy Center estimates that Romney’s tax plan will save earners in the top 1 percent $82,000 a year, but do very little for workers in the bottom half of the income distribution.”

Read more at Ezra Klein’s blog.

Happy 2012!  This is where I spent part of the winter vacation… beautiful Goa, India.