Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood: Who Should I Support?

A public fight has broken out over the last week between Susan G. Komen, a charity dedicated to preventing and curing breast cancer, and Planned Parenthood, a nationwide family planning organization. The throwdown between two popular charities has left many supporters conflicted over which organization they should support. Today, I will help provide some guidance through the complex ins and outs of the feud so you can better decide for yourself.

First, men are lucky that they do not need to have an opinion on the subject. Since Susan G. Komen is dedicated to curing breast cancer and Planned Parenthood gives abortions, men can simply shrug and say that they do not care whenever the topic is brought up. In all likelihood, women will indignantly insist that these issues affect men, too, and that such indifference is insulting and sexist. Obviously, they are wrong and are probably either on their period or suffering from a bout of hysteria. Men: you can stop reading right now, unless you ever want to get laid again.

[RIGHT: What I imagine a fight between employees at Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood may well look like.]

For those of you who want to get to know the issues, it is important to understand why Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood are fighting. The story starts with a few rich donors to Susan G. Komen who paid a Congressman to open an investigation into whether Planned Parenthood failed to report cases of possible sexual abuse against minors for whom its doctors were caring. If you are thinking that it sounds illegal to pay a Congressman to open a Congressional investigation for self-serving purposes, then apparently you have never heard of a little Supreme Court case called Citizens United that makes it illegal to tell rich people not to do things. Anyway, when Planned Parenthood objected to the investigation as unwarranted and discriminatory, Susan G. Komen’s rich pro-life backers pressured the organization to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood.

At least that’s the public story. Don’t rule out the possibility that this controversy was manufactured to get more sympathetic press for Planned Parenthood. They have certainly received much more money in private donations in the last week than they lost in the withheld grant from Susan G. Komen. If the pro-life donors really wanted to defund Planned Parenthood, it probably would have been wiser to do so in a way that did not massively increase donations to the organization.

If the public façade of the conflict is to be believed, then it might be constructive to consider what both of these organizations do for society. Susan G. Komen raises millions of dollars every year to cure breast cancer. To achieve that goal, the organization has also trademarked the color pink and the “Race for the Cure” name, and has paid high-level executives exorbitant salaries. While these aggressive business practices may sound de rigueur for a successful business, Susan G. Komen is not actually successful. Contrary to popular belief, they have NOT cured cancer and have in fact succeeded only in making themselves rich. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has cured all sorts of varied diseases, from gonorrhea to chlamydia to syphilis. They have even had some success preventing down syndrome through early detection and aggressive treatment protocols.

Some of Susan G. Komen’s most ardent supporters have pointed out that the organization remains committed to helping the American economy stay vibrant. While they say that Planned Parenthood stifles the growth of the American workforce, Susan G. Komen provides financial support for job creators, particularly those in the straightened-out wire hanger manufacturing industry.

The most important difference between the two organizations may not be operational, but relational. It has become increasingly clear over the last week that Susan G. Komen, for all of the unblinking goodwill it has accumulated over decades, is a slow moving behemoth, a relic institution of a bygone age. In other words, the organization is less viable because it does not have the ability to manipulate social media to support its actions. Clearly, the greatest sin had nothing to do with reallocating grant money, and everything to do with hiring a PR firm that could not convey dogmatic bits of social control in 140 characters.

In conclusion, the safest way to go is to post a link to an article condemning Susan G. Komen on Facebook with a snarky comment about how they bend to the whims of rich donors. Anything less risks social ostracization, so steer clear.

Aborting a Retarded Fetus Is Better that Giving a Retarded Baby Up for Adoption

By Frank Medlock

Is there a more self-serving and offensive thing a person could possibly do? Tempting to do, of course, rather than give up the rest of your life taking care of a kid whose best outcome is to sort of be able to take care of himself. But there is no greater burden you could possibly put on the rest of society.

Before I go any further, I want to address the readers who are put off by the fact that I am using the word “retarded.” I’m not going to stop using, and there are two reasons. First, it is the most general and descriptive word. Everyone knows what it means and it’s in the DSM-IV because it is the official term for the variety of disabilities. Also, the word is not inherently bad. I don’t care if it has been used in a hateful context. The word itself means that the person’s psychological development was impeded in some way. The development was retarded. The person was retarded. The word makes sense. The word “nigger” was invented to express disdain. The word “faggot” was adopted from the idea that gays should be burned to death. Those are inherently hateful words. Whatever hate is in the word “retarded” is just a reflection of social reality. If you come up with a new word to replace it without changing the fact that retarded people are looked down on socially, then that word will eventually be considered hateful too. “Nigger” was replaced by “negro” when blacks were still extremely marginalized, so that word eventually became perceived as hateful. If you replace “retarded” with “developmentally disabled,” middle school kids are still going to use it to make fun of each other, and activists will eventually get pissed off that the word is being used. Then we’ll have to find another new word, which I would say is pretty retarded.

But back to the point, there are definitely arguments for why you should be able to give up a retarded baby for adoption. On one hand, it’s kind of hard not to be sympathetic. I mean, all we hear about is how having kids changes your life and how every parent’s life revolves around his or her kids, but there’s a pretty big step up from going to soccer games or piano recitals and wiping your 22 year-old’s ass for the fourth time of the day. Maybe the worst part would be the period before the child is born but after you have found out that the baby is going to be retarded. Anticipating the misery that is to come would be atrocious. Well, I guess that’s not the worst part. The worst part is still having to spend every free minute trying to prevent your retarded kid from causing a total disaster. I admit that when you’re staring down the barrel of that gun, it would be hard to avoid pulling the adoption trigger.

On the other hand, the decision to give up the retarded baby for adoption is basically saying, “Hey, my life is too important to be disrupted by taking care of a retarded baby.” Maybe you could delude yourself into thinking that someone else wants to take care of the baby, but that is a lie. Nobody affirmatively wants to take care of a retarded baby; people just have an appropriate sense of responsibility not to throw that job on the government or some random person. They know that it is arrogant and self-centered beyond belief to think that someone else should have the completely thankless job. Believing that someone really wants to raise the retarded child is like thinking that people like picking up their dogs’ shit. Nobody likes it; you just do it because it would be fucked up to leave it for someone else to do.

Giving up a retarded kid for adoption would probably destroy the rest of your life. How could you ever feel good about yourself after doing something like that? You wouldn’t donate money to charity, because it’s not like you’re ever going to get back on the positive side of that ledger. You might still have friends, but you would always know that the friends probably look down on you for being a selfish prick, and they’d constantly worry that you’re going to pass off some responsibility on them instead of taking care of your own business. Anything you ever did would be under a dark cloud of guilt, knowing that the fun you’re having is only possible because you completely dicked over someone else who is probably spending that time reassembling a book case that your biological child tore apart for no apparent reason.

There is an obvious solution here, but you probably don’t want to hear it. When you weigh all of the options, you pretty much have to abort the fetus that is going to become a retarded baby. Think about the other possibilities. If you keep the baby, you will ruin your entire life. You are taking on a responsibility that will take up all of your time, and will not be remotely enjoyable. What you now think of as a horrible day will become a pretty good day, and there won’t be anything better. If you give the baby up for adoption, you will be annihilated by guilt for the rest of your life, and that feeling will be justified. You will have taken all of that evil I just described and passed it onto someone else. From a net social value standpoint, it’s even worse than keeping it because there is one life ruined by responsibility and another ruined by guilt. However you feel about abortion, you have to admit that it’s the socially optimal outcome. The only way to deny that argument is to say that someone would actually derive happiness from raising a retarded child, and I already explained why making that argument proves that you are a self-centered jerk.

This is what happens when you start apologizing to the Arab world

By Nancy Muller

OMAHA- Should anyone be surprised at the outbreak of right-wing violence in the wake of President Obama's recent apology tour of the Middle East? Of course not, regardless of what filthy, pink surrendercrats would have you believe. See, the last remaining true patriots can see the writing on the wall: the days of rich, white males imposing their will on everyone else have gone the way of the dodo, but not every segment of the privileged class is ready to go gently into that good night.

Look at the outrage over 88 year-old James von Brunn's attack on Washington D.C.'s Holocaust Museum this week- many Americans are claiming to be shocked and appalled at von Brunn's actions, but right-wing anti-semitism is nothing new. These insane people can only be pushed so far before they snap, and judging by the spike in gun purchases after Obama's election, they don't have to be pushed very hard at all.

Really, an anti-semitic, failed artist grows frustrated, misplaces his anger, and lashes out violently at Judaism in its entirety? Stop me if you've heard this one before. Let's just say that A&E has already contacted the descendants of Leni Reifenstahl about the made-for-TV biopic debuting in February, 2010. Frankly, I'm not surprised that the French haven't started waiving a white flag, just to be certain that they don't miss an opportunity to surrender.

What made von Brunn lose his shit? Some people will blame senility, others will say that the was mimicking he graphic depictions of violence he saw on Matlock. But I think we all know the truth. With Obama in Egypt telling the Muslims that America is partially responsible for the problems in the Middle East, the fragile psyches of the pro-America nutjobs are getting shredded faster than the Incredible Hulk's shirtsleeves.

I know what you're thinking: shouldn't the anti-semites be happy that the United States is finally backing away from its unflinching support of Israel? And your argument makes sense, but for one crucial aspect- these people are crazy. You can't demand rational analysis from people who think the “lives” of embryonic stem cells are more valuable than the mentally retarded criminals they want to execute.

You see, not all schizos are the same. The garden variety schizo- terrified of the government, wearing an aluminum hat to keep the CIA from stealing his thoughts- gets a lot of attention in the media and the movies, but there are comparably insane people out there with a pro-government guiding principle. So what happens to these abstract-thought impaired freaks when the government changes its position on an issue? Total meltdown.

[RIGHT- You have nothing to fear, tinfoil hat guy. This administration means you no harm.]

Look at anti-abortion activists. A few years ago, the government was doing everything they could do to limit abortion- not giving family planning services to other countries, requiring parental notification to scare minors-, and the schizos were content to scream “Save your baby!” to every woman of any age in a 12 block radius of the abortion clinic. Now, the government has eased its doctrinal opposition to abortion, and the crazies don't know what to do, so they start going to churches to murder abortion doctors, because, you know, human life is precious and must be preserved.

One success for which Obama deserves credit is his ability to antagonize people with limit capability to retaliate. You know in high school when they tell you not to pick on a certain kid, because he will snap and do something crazy? The same principle applies in politics, but since everything you do is under a microscope, you're bound to aggravate some imbecile with everything you do. They key is to pick the right type of imbecile. Bush pissed off the people in a highly militarized and anarchical part of the world, and they were able to knock down the freaking World Trade Center. Obama pissed off some old guy who lives in a basement and writes a blog about how Jews run the government. His crazy reaction didn't involve hijacking a plane; he just went into a museum with guns blazing and got off exactly one shot before getting shot 8 times in the face. So if chickens were coming home to roost when von Brunn shot up the Holocaust Museum, at least it was an incredibly incompetent chicken.