Susan G. Komen for the Cure puts politics ahead of women’s health

The women’s health community was blindsided this week by the news that a former ally had turned its back on the women it purports to help. Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the largest nonprofit focused on breast cancer in the United States, has said it will pull grants totaling nearly $700,000 that go to breast cancer screenings and mammogram referrals from Planned Parenthood.

Why?

Anti-choice politics. It turns out Komen’s founder, Nancy G. Brinker, is a huge George W. Bush supporter, and a senior official, Karen Handel, campaigned for governor of Georgia as a fierce Planned Parenthood opponent. Supposedly Komen has a new rule about not donating to organizations that are under investigation by the U.S. government. The only reason anti-choice politicians want to investigate Planned Parenthood is because they claim federal money intended for the 97 percent of PP’s non-abortion-related services is fungible (i.e., a saintly taxpayer’s pure dollar intended for cancer screening could accidentally come into contact with a dirty whore’s abortion money).

This, despite the fact that money wasn’t being used for abortion. This, despite the fact there’s no link between abortion and breast cancer. This, despite the fact so many low-income women have nowhere but Planned Parenthood to go for breast health. This, despite the fact if you want to shun women who have abortions, you’ll be ignoring one-third of us.

How very “pro-life” to deny money for life-saving screenings.

I have not supported Komen in the past, as I’m not close with anyone who has struggled with breast cancer and been a fan of the foundation.* Honestly, I’m a little tired of facing “pink October” and seeing “save the tatas” paraphernalia. Shouldn’t we be focused on, I don’t know — saving women’s lives? I have no doubt choosing a mastectomy is gut-wrenching, but as high-profile cases such as Christina Applegate and Giuliana Rancic show, most women would rather lose their breasts than their lives. (For more of a great long read on this topic, check out Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Welcome to Cancerland.”)

asiangrrlMN adds:

The real issue I have with the Race for the Cure, though, and other charity events like it is that so little of their money goes to what they actually purport to be advocating.  In the case of the Komen Foundation, their express purpose is finding a cure for breast cancer.  Yet, according to their fund report from 2009, only 17% of the money they received/earned went to funding cancer research.  As the author in the aforementioned link notes, they did other worthwhile things with their money, but still.  17% for the actual cause of the charity?  In addition, also according to the link, the Komen Foundation is notorious for suing any charity, no matter how small, who has ‘for the cure’ in its name.  How is that effective use of donation money, really?

Komen representatives seemed unprepared for the backlash and refused to answer repeated questions from the press. Negative comments are being deleted from the Facebook page. A nonprofit PR expert explains this is how not to run a nonprofit in The Accidental Rebranding of Komen for the Cure.

I hope Komen does restore funding to Planned Parenthood, but for me, and a lot of other people, the damage is done. We have seen what Komen’s priorities are, and they don’t include women’s health care.

A line has been drawn in the sand. Do you stand with women and Planned Parenthood?

Or do you stand with radical ideology and Susan G. Komen for the Cure?

ETA: If you’ve previously donated to Komen and would like a list of alternatives, check out Five Ways to Support Women’s Health for All.

*This originally said I don’t know anyone personally who has had breast cancer. I have been corrected in the comments below.

 

If you work at a nonprofit, you deserve to die

That was pretty much the gist of the comments on an editorial I read Tuesday: Breast cancer, health insurance and an apology to President Obama. The author, Spike Dolomite Ward, was recently diagnosed with stage three breast cancer. Her family was uninsured and she was frantic about how she was going to pay the bills for her treatment. Then she found out about the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, which “guarantees access to insurance for U.S. citizens with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months.” Dolomite Ward says:

The application was short, the premiums are affordable, and I have found the people who work in the administration office to be quite compassionate (nothing like the people I have dealt with over the years at other insurance companies). It’s not perfect, of course, and it still leaves many people in need out in the cold. But it’s a start, and for me it’s been a lifesaver — perhaps literally.

I should have known better than to read the comments. There isn’t a single issue you can post on the Internet without attracting at least one troll. (Updates on the Jerry Sandusky case led more than one person to say alleged victims were coming forward only to make money.) And throughout the day I was writing this post, the title of the editorial changed (to “‘Obamacare’ to the rescue”) and some of the nastiest comments were deleted by the LA Times. But many remained, of which the following are just a sample:

Sophiac3: What infuriates me is that she has a house… that she owns. She chose to keep it instead of insuring her family. That is the most irresponsible thing I can imagine.

BlakeSDavis: What a bunch of baloney. Another stunt for Obama. …Even if this woamn’s story is true, it has a hollow feel to it… Hope you’re happy lady, because you go your bills paid at the expense of everyone else!

Will Bergeron: Set aside for a moment the fact that if she was so responsible, perhaps being faced with dire economic conditions, it might not have been the best of times for her husband to “start a new business” and pay for health insurance out of pocket… and maybe her “business” as an artist might not be the best idea ever, and that – oh the horror – it might be a better idea to find a “regular” job that pays the bills and provides health insurance in the meantime while they get back on their feet and can more realistically “take chances”… and lets set aside the fact that selling their house and renting would have been a better idea than losing health insurance.

MarkLucky: Personal Responsibility is what we should be preaching — not the message of watch to government save my sorry butt because I lived beyond my means… this poor lady should have sold her house and moved to a place to live that was within her means… probably well before cashing in a 401K or any other measure she took to try and maintain the lifestyle clearly beyond her means… now her irresponsibility becomes my problem??  Yeah, that seems fair…

IntellectGetOne: Perhaps you missed the part about her living in the Valley?  Her having her own home?  Her living a lifestyle by CHOICE where she decided NOT to spend money on health insurance so she and her husband could continue to pursue their dreams?  Where she and her husband did not want to move or sell their expensive home — and now, she wants us to thank Barrack Obama for giving her health insurance?Hey, if the President wants to pay for her out of his pocket — more power to him.  But for him to pass a law that forces the rest of us to pay for her decisions and her spending patterns and her wonderful, glorious lifestyle out in the Valley — then that, my friend — is just plain wrong.

IntellectGetOne: Gee, instead of apologizing and then thanking Barak Obama, maybe you could apologize to the rest of us and thank us? We all made hard choices and took jobs as working stiffs so we could pay our insurance.  You got to go the non-profit route and keep your nice home in the Valley.  Now you get the benefit of health insurance on our dime. The least you could do is thank us for paying for your mistake.

William Plantagenet: How dare you make me pay for your decisions. While you decided to become an artist (starving artist comes to mind) with some silly non profit instead of a nurse or an accountant, and your husband decided to try to strike it rich, I continued to pay for my own family’s healthcare. You decided to live in the expensive San Fernando Valley instead of Fargo or Ottumwa. You decided your own spending priorities. You decided an expensive area is more important than your healthcare. You decided trying to start a business is more important than your heathcare. You decided having a job to be creative was more important than having a job with healthcare.I have zero sympathy for people like you who want ME TO BAIL YOU OUT. I decided differently and am now being forced to pay higher premiums to freeloaders like you. You make a decision, you take the consequences, good or bad. You make me sick.

sub2800: But at least she thanks you for it.. oh wait no she thanked Obama. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I made the poor choices that this author and her husband made and then expected to have my fellow tax payers bail me out for my selfishness. I know the attacks will come about me calling her selfish but choosing to keep an expensive house instead of health insurance is selfish and reckless. If her kids are still minors, she should really be investigated by child services for putting them at risk with he poor decisions.

ohioguy280: Let me get this straight. You blew off paying for health coverage, got sick and now your screwed. Why is this my problem? I pay 100% of my families health coverage. Why should I pay for yours?

joanne376: I’m one of those ‘luckier’ people that you disparage. I have a news update for you. I too would dearly love to park myself in a picturesque area of the country and run an arts organization, however in order to be able to do things like pay my mortgage and have health insurance, as well as save for retirement, I chose a business profession in an organization that offers a good health plan in a state with a more sensible cost of living. My conscious decision and hard work required to execute it, is luck? In what universe?

Mark Crawford: OH Boo Hoo. You made a choice to keep your house rather than move into an apartment and did so at the expense of others who now have to foot the bill.  You are in effect a self indulgant thief of other peoples money and should be ashamed of yourself.

The lack of compassion is stunning. Most of the negative commenters assume Dolomite Ward could have prevented her situation: her husband shouldn’t have started his own business, she shouldn’t work at a nonprofit, they should have sold their home. Yes, she and her husband discussed selling their house and chose not to. Sophiac3 takes her to task for being selfish, but that assumes Dolomite Ward would be able to sell her house, which, in this economy, is doubtful. And there’s no guarantee that if they’d been able to sell the house, it would have solved their problems. Many rental units are just as expensive as mortgages.

Others criticize her for working at a nonprofit and not an accounting firm, where apparently there are plenty of high-paying jobs just ripe for the taking. I’m not sure these people have followed that thinking to its logical end: If Dolomite Ward shouldn’t work at a nonprofit, who should? It’s generally the case that nonprofit employees make less than for-profit counterparts for a variety of reasons. Does that mean no one should work at a nonprofit?

Heifer International, Oxfam America, Doctors Without Borders, Habitat for Humanity, American Cancer Society, Planned Parenthood, AARP, the ACLU, amFAR, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Girls Incorporated, Girl Scouts, Goodwill, United Way, the YMCA — the list of nonprofits doing vital work is endless. But apparently the people who work for all of those organizations deserve whatever life throws at them because they chose to dedicate their life to a cause rather than a corporation.

I believe in personal responsibility, but there is only a certain amount of risk you can reasonably prepare for. Catastrophe is just around the corner for any one of us. The message on this editorial’s discussion board seemed to be “look out for No. 1.” Don’t care about your neighbors. Don’t care about your fellow Americans or fellow inhabitants of Earth. If your house is blown away by a tornado, tough; you should have known better than to build it there. If your family is running out of food, tough; you should have known to pick a recession-proof job. If your car is totaled in an accident, tough; you should have known to avoid that drunken driver. If you’re diagnosed with a chronic illness that prevents you from getting private insurance, tough; you should have known not to be born. It’s not my problem.

Well, I believe it is my problem. It’s our problem. It’s pure luck that we have been born American, and therefore even the most disadvantaged of us have more power, wealth and privilege than any other culture that has ever existed. I believe that comes with an obligation to repay as much as we can to those less fortunate, whether they be our countrymen or not. It lessens everything we believe to be good about America when 15 million children are living in poverty; when wages are stagnant and declining; when neighbors are going bankrupt and facing foreclosure; when millions of people have given up on finding a job; when our infrastructure is crumbling beneath us — and we do nothing about it.

We have the resources to fix our problems. There has never been an occasion in our history when we have failed to find a solution to a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. We built feats of architecture such as the Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam, Mount Rushmore. We sent astronauts to the moon. We developed technology that allows people on the other side of the globe to read this post; to know, in real time, exactly what’s happening on another continent.

If we could do that, we can do this. We can pull together and say, “Enough. My family has access to food, housing, education and medical care, but I won’t be satisfied until every family has that same safety and security.”

We have the money and the ideas to come out of this recession greater than we were before.

Now we just need to find the will.

Even kids’ birthday cards are gendered

I went into a Walgreens recently looking for a birthday card for my cousin’s 8-year-old daughter. I made my way to the rack and quickly noticed that not only were the cards divided by age, but by gender. There wasn’t a generic “happy second birthday” card, there were “2nd – girl” and “2nd – boy” cards. And, as you might imagine, all of the girls’ cards were pink, purple and sparkly, and talked about being princesses for a day. The boys’ cards had images of superheroes and Buzz Lightyear, in blue, green and red. The only gender-neutral cards were designed to hold cash or a check; because I was sending a gift, those weren’t helpful.

Needless to say, I was disappointed and disgusted. Not all little girls like My Little Pony and Disney princesses; not all little boys like superheroes. This 8-year-old I was shopping for enjoys dressing up, but she is far from prim and proper. She loves digging in the dirt, making messes, learning about science. She has devoured almost the whole “Harry Potter” series. I was there the day she came home from the hospital, and her whole life I’ve tried to give her gifts that any kid would like, or that at least weren’t stereotypically girly. The first book I gave her, when she was still an infant, was full of fairy tales with girls — so often the damsels in distress or minor characters — as the heroes of the stories.

When another little girl joined the family last year, I tried to do the same thing. As I looked for a cross-stitch pattern to celebrate her birth, I avoided all of the designs that were completely pink or talked about princesses. I picked one with a teddy bear and a crescent moon with the text “a star is born” — and even that didn’t completely satisfy me.

I doubt that anyone other than me even recognizes these efforts, and I don’t pretend they’re going to have a major effect on how these girls grow up. But it’s important to me to make even small gestures to let them know they have value as human beings, that they can be strong, smart, confident, athletic. I want them to know they can dream about being the next Hillary Clinton or Tina Fey, Maya Angelou or Mia Hamm, Sally Ride or Sonia Sotomayor, not Snow White or Cinderella.

The boys in my family live across the country, and I don’t see them often, but my hope for them would be to know it’s OK to show emotion and like things that society sees as feminine. That would be my wish for all children this holiday: to be unapologetically who they are, and ignore the people who try to tell them their interests aren’t appropriately boyish or girly. Kids these days have it hard enough; they don’t need the added burden of forcing themselves to fit the mold we set for them as soon as we hear “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl.”

Why I volunteer for the president despite disagreeing with him

The reason why I support the president despite sometimes disagreeing with him should be obvious. There’s not a single person in my life I agree with 100 percent of the time. If you respond you do have someone like that in your life, please go grow a spine.

Off the top of my head, I can think of several areas where I disagree with the president: he doesn’t support same-sex marriage; he hasn’t closed Guantanamo Bay; he signed an executive order when the health care law was passed banning federal funding for abortion; his support of the EPA has been tepid; more undocumented workers have been deported under him than any other president (not something to be proud of); and he and his defense secretary are opposed to any cuts in defense spending despite the fact that makes up the majority of our budget.

However, his list of accomplishments is vast: he has appointed more women and minorities to positions of power than any other president, including two women to the Supreme Court; passed the most sweeping health care reform in generations; killed Osama bin Laden; passed a stimulus bill that prevented a depression; saved the auto industry; ended don’t ask, don’t tell; stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act; made a video for the It Gets Better project; appointed former rival Hillary Clinton to secretary of state, where she’s had wild success and approval; improved the standing of the United States around the world; halted massive job loss and created new jobs; proposed the American Jobs Act to fix our aging infrastructure and project public sector jobs; and ended the global gag rule that prohibited U.S. aid to foreign family planning groups that even mentioned abortion to their clients.

Yet liberals who supported Obama in the 2008 election seem disillusioned this time around. Most of the people I talk with are planning to vote for the president again, but they’re not jumping in to volunteer for the campaign.

They’re disappointed for what boils down to two reasons: They thought Obama was more progressive than he really is, and they blame him because Washington is gridlocked.

First of all, I can’t think of a single issue where Obama has ever pledged a truly liberal stance, despite screaming from the right wing about how he’s a Marxist/communist/socialist. But because the United States got dragged so far to the right under George W. Bush, and even under Clinton, Obama looked like he was more progressive than he really is. He’s a centrist, and that’s not a bad thing. It’s a far sight better than what we had from 2000-2008.

Second, in our government, it takes three groups to get anything done: the Senate, the House and the White House. After the 2010 midterms, the Republicans took control of the House, and although the Democrats still have the Senate, they don’t have enough votes to pass bills without Republican support. And even if they did, they’d still run up against the wall of opposition in the House, where leaders are determined to get nothing done. They want the economy to do badly because they want Obama out of the White House. There’s only so much Obama can do without the approval of Congress. And he has bent over backward to compromise with Republicans and include them in discussions to move the country forward. They refuse.

I’m disappointed that more people who supported Obama in 2008 don’t understand the above points. Over the weekend I had a union organizer tell me that based on what he’s hearing, if there were a Democratic primary challenge, Obama would be in trouble. I wanted to beat my head against a wall. Obama is the smartest, most serious, most reasonable president we’ve had in a decade. And one of his best characteristics is that he’s open to criticism, feedback and new ideas.

I wasn’t surprised to read about friction in the early stages of his administration over the role of women in the West Wing. According to the Washington Post, female staffers felt shut out of discussions and disregarded to the point where it could qualify as a hostile workplace. Obama’s reaction? He finally sat down with the women to hear them out.

“Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. … The complaints seemed to subside over the last year, as officials have made a greater effort to promote women and the tight-knit inner circle has shifted to bring new advisers into the building.”

That, to me, is the work of a good leader. No, he’s not perfect. No one is. But despite the areas where I disagree with him, I truly believe he is a good man. I truly believe he has the best interest of all Americans at heart. That is why I have put so much time and effort into re-electing him. It’s why you should consider doing the same.

No sympathy for Penn State

The grand jury report indicting Jerry Sandusky on 40 counts of child sexual abuse of should be required reading for anyone commenting on the scandal at Penn State University. To date, it has brought down football coach Joe Paterno and school president Graham Spanier, and athletic director Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, senior vice president for business and finance, have been charged with perjury and failure to report suspected abuse. Curley has taken administrative leave and Schultz has decided to step down.

Penn State students rioted last night when the board of trustees fired Paterno instead of letting him retire at the end of the year, as he had announced he would do earlier Wednesday. Apparently they think the football team’s 8-1 record is more important than the welfare of children. I have to believe most of the rioters had no idea how serious the charges against Sandusky are, because if they did, they should turn in their humanity cards.

The report made me sick to my stomach. It detailed eight victims with whom Sandusky acted inappropriately, anywhere from unwanted touching on a thigh to the anal rape of a 10-year-old boy in a locker room shower. That most serious charge was witnessed by a graduate student in 2002. Instead of immediately intervening and calling 911, he walked away and called his father. He later reported what he saw to his supervisor, who reported it up the chain of command.

None of them called the police.

None of us knows how we will react in that situation, but I like to think I would not just go about my life as if nothing had happened. If I reported it to my supervisor, and no police investigation ever happened, I would start shouting it from the rooftops, telling anyone and everyone what I saw — especially if the man still had access to more young kids to abuse.

It’s a good bet that this story is only going to get worse. Eight victims have been identified, but given the easy access Sandusky had to young boys through his Second Mile Foundation, there are likely many more. There’s even a rumor he was offering boys to wealthy Penn State donors.

What has been almost lost in the media coverage and reaction is any thought to the victims and their families. The sister of one victim is a student at Penn State, and she can barely stand to go to class. Apparently there was a vigil last night on campus, but the media’s focus was on the riot. I hope the victims have gotten the help they need and are leading healthy, happy lives. They have finally gotten to hold their abuser accountable for his actions, and it’s my wish they will get justice for the innocence he stole from them.

Despite the title of this post, I do have sympathy for the Penn State students and alumni who have been disillusioned by Paterno. It can’t be easy to find out a man you admired and respected is capable of covering up something of this magnitude. I once worked for a man who was a public figure whom I liked a lot — until the day I found out he’d been forced from his position for sexually harassing an employee with whom he’d been having an affair. And that pales in comparison to the scandal at Penn State.

I should add that Sandusky is innocent until proven guilty and he has denied the charges. But again, the grand jury report is compelling. Read it with a trash can handy, and then see if you have any sympathy for the adults who lost their jobs this week for failing to protect vulnerable children.

Only boys can do homework

Or so JCPenney seems to think, according to this shirt the retailer had for sale:

This shouldn't be happening in 2011.

Anyone who thinks sexism is a thing of the past and feminism has won need only look at this to be proven wrong. After a petition brought the shirt to the public’s attention, Penney took it down. But according to the petition, the caption for the shirt to the right was “Who has time for homework when there’s a new Justin Bieber album out? She’ll love this tee that’s just as cute and sassy as she is.”

Not only does this shirt, aimed at girls 7-16, make the assumption that pretty girls can’t be smart girls, it also assumes the brother is smarter than his sister.

Here’s another shirt on sale by Penney, also directed at girls ages 7-16, that pushes the idea girls can’t possibly be good at school. (The text reads “My best subjects: boys, shopping, music, dancing.” As far as I know, only one of those is an actual subject at most schools.)

It should surprise me that in 2011, major retailers such as JCPenney are selling shirts such as these.

It should, but it doesn’t.

It doesn’t, despite the fact more women than men are earning bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees. All you have to do is scroll through the entries at Microaggressions to see how pervasive it still is that women are bubbleheads.

Here’s a thought experiment for you. I’m going to list some of the occupations of my high school acquaintances and friends. You decide which jobs you think are held by men and which are held by women.

Veterinarian. Electrical engineer. Elementary schoolteacher. Construction management engineer. Doctor. Computer science PhD. Citigroup vice president. Self-employed performer. Art teacher.

OK, I’ll give you a couple more seconds to make your guesses.

….

…

…

…

….

Done? Is your mental list ready? Here are the results:

They’re all women.

And they’re all so accomplished I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, although some of my friends do have brothers, they didn’t need to rely on their male siblings to achieve their success. Episodes like this make me want to bang my head against the wall and moan in despair that girls and women will ever be taken seriously. But I’ll keep fighting for the day when retailers sell “future rocket scientist” and “future president” shirts for girls 7-16.

In the meantime, JCPenney has lost a customer. Let the store know how sexist it is by contacting the company here. You can read more commentary at Jezebel, Feministing and Shine.

I went on vacation this year

You might not have known that; it wasn’t exactly headline news. I went camping with my sister and a couple of friends in Missouri. I visited my family for a few days and attended a block party in my cousin’s neighborhood. I spent plenty of money on gas, snacks, camping equipment, and a dinner out for my family.
 
Pretty all-American, right? I took the vacation days that are a benefit provided by my employer and put money into the economy. And I didn’t feel guilty about having a good time while doing so, even though members of my family are out of work or underemployed. Even though unemployment is at 9 percent. 

 
Republicans are having a lot of fun criticizing President Obama for doing the same thing I did: taking a vacation. Here are my responses to their most common talking points:

 

1. It “looks bad” Obama is on vacation while the country is in a recession and so many people are unemployed. However, economists think it will take years to bring unemployment below 8 percent. Is Obama not supposed to take another day off until the economy fully recovers? If Republicans are so concerned about out-of-work Americans, they should be busy crafting a jobs bill (one that doesn’t rely on tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations to create jobs) instead of attacking women’s health and weakening union regulations.

  
2. The Obamas are having fun on the taxpayers’ dime. The president and first lady can’t go anywhere without spending taxpayer money. They require security everywhere they go. How do we determine what destinations are acceptable and which aren’t? Put it to an opinion poll? It’s OK to vacation in the Rockies but not in Spain? They can go only within 100 miles of Washington, D.C.? I’m sure the Obamas would prefer to vacation just the four of them. It can’t be fun to have a huge entourage everywhere you go. It’s just part of the job description.
 
And consider:

 

1. Obama has taken only 61 vacation days so far, compared to 180 for Bush for the same amount of time. Remember that Bush was dealing with 9/11 and its aftermath in that period of time. Does that make him more or less entitled to three times as much vacation has Obama has taken? Obama has arguably the toughest job in the world. Why are we begrudging him time off with his family, especially since there’s no such thing as a president leaving his job entirely behind? Even while he’s in Martha’s Vineyard he’s getting updates and staying on top of breaking news developments. If Hurricane Irene devastates the East Coast this weekend, do you think he’ll say “I’m on vacation, Joe Biden can deal with it”? Another good point from this Star Tribune column is that even if Obama never took any vacation days, he wouldn’t be able to solve every problem that came across his desk.

 
2. Congress is in recess. That means — gasp — that Republicans are on vacation as well. Where’s the outrage about that? Moreover, what is Obama supposed to be doing when the Capitol is deserted? Obviously there are things Obama could be working on, but there will always be things he could be working on, and I’m sure he can work on some of them just as well from Massachusetts as he can from D.C.

 

3. There is no good time for a president to take a vacation. There will always be a conflict somewhere; turmoil on the other side of the world; people here and abroad who don’t have the luxury of food and water, let alone a vacation. Should he — should we — do without until everyone has the same standard of living?

 

4. I’m sure the president has people whose sole job is to determine how his actions play in public. He knows exactly how this “looks” to ordinary Americans, and apparently he doesn’t care. I can’t say I blame him.
 
I don’t think any president or elected official should get carte blanche when it comes to time off. If s/he sets a record for the number of days of vacation taken while in office, that’s a legitimate criticism for anyone. But everyone is entitled to take vacations. I want everyone to take vacations. I want my doctors and emergency responders and bosses and political officials to get time off to relax, recharge and refresh themselves so they are at their best when they do their jobs.

 

Including my president.

An open letter to John Boehner: I am the American people

This post is from a reader who is fed up with the political gridlock in Washington. She asked to remain anonymous.

Mr. Boehner,

You have often been quoted saying, “The American people have spoken” or “The American people have sent a message.” I don’t know those who have allegedly spoken, but “they” are not me.

Mr. Boehner, I am the American people.

I have been out of full-time work for three years. I am employed part-time and cannot find additional part-time employment. I wait my turn at the public library to conduct my job search. I have had only three interviews during the past three years.

I am single, over 50, and do not have health insurance. I was suddenly hospitalized, through the emergency room, shortly after losing my full-time job. I have accepted unemployment and housing assistance. I exhausted unemployment and COBRA subsidies benefits months ago. I don’t remember when I last saw a dentist.

I’ve stopped wearing contacts; upkeep costs too much. I need new glasses.

I cannot pay rent; I do not quality for any sort of assistance. I cannot pay ComEd, Nicor, or other bills. I cannot pay federal or state income tax. I do not overspend, unless medical bills are considered overspending. I have no retirement savings, I own no property.

Mr. Boehner, I am the American people.

I do not have cable, a working computer, or access to the Internet. I do not eat steak, rent videos, or dine out. I do not smoke or drink. I do not drive unless necessary, usually only to my part-time job. I do not have my hair cut. I do not have a text plan on my cell phone. I pay for a basic phone plan, in case, just in case, a potential employer calls.

I am college educated and have completed some post-graduate coursework.

I am no idiot.

Mr. Boehner, I am the American people.

I have pets, one of which was thrown away by someone else. They will eat before I do. I have participated in true grassroots action on behalf of school children and abused women. I have volunteered at free clinics for children and for the homeless. I have never donated to a political campaign. I have worked for years at polling places. I have no lobbyist.

Some of my neighbors are elderly. Some are dependent upon disability income. I worked on contingency planning with others to move food, children and animals if our electricity fails due to storm damage or delivery system overload. We sadly acknowledged that other Americans will die this summer due to capacity and service interruptions.

I have borrowed money from friends and family. I am not eligible for food stamps. I have no children, I am not eligible for family “aid.” I am not old enough for Social Security, which you apparently are planning to take away anyway. God has not “provided” — please tell your caucus.

I did not plan to live my life this way. I did not get up this morning and decide to “take advantage” of the government. I have done everything “right.” I am not a so-called “usurper.” I am tired. I do have a bit of pride left. Not much. But a little.

Mr. Boehner, I am the American people.

Mr. Boehner, please do not speak for the American people unless you know them. Again, Mr. Boehner —

I am the American people.

“Hot Coffee’s” punchline is on us

Stop me if you’ve heard this one.

A woman burns herself after spilling a cup of coffee. She decides to sue McDonald’s for not letting her know that a typically hot beverage was, in fact, hot. She’s awarded millions of dollars and is held up as an example of the frivolous lawsuits invading America.

What about this one?

Stella Liebeck, 79, a passenger in a parked car, suffers third-degree burns from a hot liquid poured in her lap. Her recovery is uncertain, but after several surgeries and skin grafts, she pulls through. She asks the company responsible for the accident to pay her medical bills.

Do those sound like two totally different stories to you? They’re actually one and the same. That’s what happens when the right-wing spin machine gets its hands on your story. Stella Liebeck is the woman who became the butt of every late-night comedian’s joke for an accident that could have taken her life. What’s often left out of her account is the fact that the coffee was 180 degrees Fahrenheit; McDonald’s had had more than 700 complaints about the too-high temperature; and Liebeck sought only enough money to pay her medical bills — about $20,000.

McDonald’s offered $800.

Yes, a jury later awarded Liebeck $2.8 million in damages, but the case was finally settled out of court on undisclosed terms. I stumbled across a picture of Liebeck’s injuries while researching this post, and the damage was horrific. In my opinion, she deserved whatever recompense she eventually received.

I actually did know, but learned only within the last couple of years, that Liebeck’s story has more merit than it’s typically given in pop culture. I was reminded about it again after I saw a bit about a new documentary on the Daily Dish.

As “Hot Coffee,” the HBO documentary by Susan Saladoff, explains, it’s thanks to conservatives the case came to be representative of the need for tort reform. They believe in placing caps on damages injured people can seek from companies or doctors who have done the public harm. As Scott Lemieux writes in “Burned by the Courts”:

The film describes the ways in which the tort reform movement is connected to a broader movement to lessen the political and legal accountability of corporations. Corporations in many cases have used alleged problems with the legal system to justify requiring customers and employees to submit to binding arbitration rather than civil court. When people do have access to the courts, they find that many state judiciaries — where judges are elected and eligible to receive campaign donations — are heavily tilted towards business interests.

Another case that “Hot Coffee” highlights is that of Jamie Leigh Jones, who sought justice from employer Halliburton/KBR after she was gang-raped by co-workers while living in Baghdad. The company had a policy that employees couldn’t bring charges against it but were instead subject to binding arbitration. When Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., submitted an amendment to a defense bill stating the U.S. wouldn’t do business with contractors that denied employees their day in court, 30 Republicans voted against it. Thirty Republicans thought women like Jones should have no recourse if they were sexually assaulted on the job. (Franken won my admiration for his activism and support of Jones on this case.)

Conservatives rail against big government yet have no problem with big business, which I’d argue is the more dangerous institution. If we didn’t have regulations, laws and negligence lawsuits, what would keep corporations in line? What would make them do the right thing rather than the cheap thing? Nothing. Only the threat of bad PR or a tumbling share price really scares boards of directors.

There has to be some check on their power. Big business will never do the right thing because it’s right (see BP’s reluctance to pay damages to industries affected by last year’s massive oil spill). Even in a time of record profits, the company still resisted helping those whose livelihoods and environment were destroyed by BP’s carelessness.

The bottom line is that tort reform is yet another way conservatives look out for the interests of big business rather than the interests of ordinary Americans. Yes, there are some ridiculous lawsuits being filed today, but there are also many that have merit and deserve to be heard in court. So the next time you hear someone laughing about a frivolous lawsuit, before you join in the joke, do some research to determine the facts.

East Africa desperately needs your help

On Wednesday, the United Nations declared a famine in Somalia. Drought has made it nearly impossible to grow food. According to CNN, “Aid workers call it the worst food crisis since a famine in Ethiopia in the mid-1980s that killed about 1 million people.”

Thousands of people, mostly children, have died from a lack of water and food. It’s estimated that 10 million people in East Africa are at risk. Governments have pledged their aid, but it’s been slow in coming, and the hope is that individuals will pick up the slack by donating to aid groups already on the ground. (I’ve written before on the importance of researching charities before donating your money.) I know times are tough for many people in America, and if you live here chances are you’re trying to stay cool in this sweltering heat wave. But you likely still have access to food and water, and you probably have a dollar or two to spare. Please consider giving to the World Food Programme, Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam or UNICEF. You can also look through this list of ways to help compiled by CNN.

Americans sometimes joke about leaving food on their plates when there are children starving in Africa. Well, it’s not a joke. It’s reality.

AP: Malnutrition rates in Somalia have reached extraordinarily high levels of 50 percent for children under five.

Photo from “UN launches largest ever famine relief effort”