Rick Santorum, Bob Vander Plaats and a matter of money

     “Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
     for anyone to heed the call.”
     (Crosby Stills and Nash, “Cathedral” c1977, Atlantic Records)

     As February draws to a close and the GOP race continues, I find myself in a bit of a quandry. The quandry that I’m in is over the pre-Christmas endorsement of Rick Santorum’s campaign by Iowa evangelical leader and Family Leader head Bob Vander Plaats. According to a December 23rd article from ABC News, questions arose regarding the endorsement and its being conditioned on a monetary contribution to Vander Plaats by the Santorum campaign, to the tune of 1M. Santorum’s account of the arrangement subsequently vascillated between admissions and denials that the topic of money was ever discussed.

     In a CNN interview conducted prior to the Vander Plaats endorsement press conference, Santorum indicated that money was among the topics discussed with the evangelical leader. Then, during a campaign event in Indianola, Iowa, Santorum stated to ABC News that the topic of money hadn’t ever come up in his discussions with Bob Vander Plaats. The statement to ABC was mere hours before the endorsement.

     For Vander Plaats’ part, the evangelical leader’s account of the situation also seems to have varied within the same time period. At one point, Vander Plaats’ organisation issued a statement, which read in part; ”The allegation by an unnamed source that Bob Vander Plaats asked any campaigns for money in exchange for his endorsement is absolutely false…” Then, in a subsequent interview with the Des Moines Register, Vander Plaats stated that it was his “ethical responsibility” to have the endorsement backed with funding. He stated that, “You can’t say, ‘We endorsed you. Now see you later,’ that’s not going to do a lot in the long run.”^(1) (2)

     Rick Santorum went on to win the Iowa Caucuses in a close race with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.⁽³⁾

______________________________

     “Lies in disguise, in the name of trust,
     Put your head in the sand, it’ll turn to dust…
     What’s your problem, what’s your curse,
     won’t it make the matter worse?”
     (Tears For Fears, “Badman’s Song” c1989, Fontana Records)

     The problem that I have with this whole scandal is that, in the intervening months since the Iowa Caucuses, the story seems to have all but disappeared from the political landscape. If one googles the terms “Santorum Vander Plaats endorsement,” the most recent articles are from back in late December. It’s almost like the whole holiday season controversy has been swept under the proverbial rug of public consciousness.

     Looking back at what we know, it would seem evident that Santorum lied about the endorsement’s monetary factor. Either he lied to CNN, or he lied to ABC, because what he told one is directly opposite of what he told the other according to the articles from each news outlet. Vander Plaats also apparently told his share of fibs regarding the arrangement. And, since the endorsement of Santorum from a prominent Republican in Iowa quite possibly resulted in the Santorum win in the caucuses, I would expect that somebody would have some “‘splainin’ to do!”

     It appears however, that the American penchant for having short attention spans is in full effect on this one. What, no one has a problem with the extreme likelihood that Rick Santorum, a candidate who has worn his Christian faith on his chest like a breastplate, lied about a possible 1M dollar endorsement purchase? Or is it that we have become so complacent, that we automatically expect that Santorum, being a politician, is going to lie? Now folks, I know that politicians aren’t the most honest people, but what does this say for the integrity of someone who might be sent to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in November?

...a coming conflagration in the middle east?

     Tensions in the Persian Gulf are continuing to increase over Iran’s nuclear program. Earlier today, the deputy head of the Islamic Republic’s armed forces, Mohammad Hejazi told the semi-official FARS news agency that;

     “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.”

     This embrace of a pre-emptive stance comes amid increasing pressure on Tehran from western governments, including tough new economic sanctions. As a result of these sanctions, Iran has cut oil sales to French and British companies, although this halt in oil sales is largely symbolic, since these two nations (Great Britain and France) had already cut back on purchases of Iranian oil.⁽¹⁾

     At this point, my fine young readers, I want to jump backwards a few news items. Back on the second of February, a story broke in the Washington Post which detailed U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s concerns that Israel may be preparing a spring offensive against Iran, specifically targeting its fledgeling nuclear program. According to the report, Israel would want to launch an attack before the point where Iran’s nuclear program enters a “zone of immunity,” which is to say that there would be little that Israel could do for any attack to be effective after that point.^(2) (3)

     Shortly after this story broke, another curious story hit the presses. According to a February 11th Fox News item, the Pentagon it seems, has filed an urgent request to defense appropriators on ”the Hill” for upgrades to the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) weapon system. 20 of these massive, bunker-busting bombs are being made “battle ready,” and in a real hurry.⁽⁴⁾

     Let’s stop at this point, and ask ourselves some questions about this whole mess. First, Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. If that’s so, why would they build their nuclear facilities deep underground, and protected by anti-aircraft systems? If Iran has nothing to hide regarding its ambitions, then why aren’t International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors being allowed to inspect, instead of being dragged into pointless discussions with officials in Tehran?⁽⁵⁾ Keep in mind ladies and gents, this is the same Iran that has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off of the world map. One small caveat to also bear in mind is that if Iran builds a bomb, then the Saudi’s have said that they will build one as well, as the two are engaged in a political struggle for hegemony over the region.

     So, what if Israel attacks Iran? What will happen? Well folks, I have pondered that very same question. Evidently, so have the strategists and think-tankers, because if you google that question, there are indeed some projections and predictions addressing that very thing! Rather than go into depth regarding these predictions, I’ll link to them here, and let you read the articles themselves.^(6) (7)

     Given what we know so far, there are a few likely scenarios that I can see playing out;

•      The Pentagon, having readied 20 of the MOP bombs, delivers a number of these to Israel, who subsequently uses these in a spring offensive against Iranian nuclear program targets.

•      The Israelis launch a spring offensive, which does only moderate damage. In response, Iran lashes out and attacks Israeli targets, but also ends up attacking and damaging U.S. interests. In response, the U.S. drops MOP on Iran nuclear program targets.

     Now, I’m no expert. I do however, think it’s curious that Israel cancelled a joint U.S. / Israel exercise that was to be held this spring. Put that together with everything else that has been going on with Iran in the past few months, and you have a recipe for some springtime drama in the middle east.

     In a statement to media earlier today, Google responded with the following;

    ”Unlike other major browsers, Apple’s Safari browser blocks third-party cookies by default. However, Safari enables many web features for its users that rely on third parties and third-party cookies, such as [Facebook's] ‘Like’ buttons.

“Last year, we began using this functionality to enable features for signed-in Google users on Safari who had opted to see personalised ads and other content – such as the ability to ‘+1′ [the equivalent of Facebook's 'Like' for Google's new Google+ social network] things that interest them.

“To enable these features, we created a temporary communication link between Safari browsers and Google’s servers, so that we could ascertain whether Safari users were also signed into Google, and had opted for this type of personalisation.

“But we designed this so that the information passing between the user’s Safari browser and Google’s servers was anonymous – effectively creating a barrier between their personal information and the web content they browse.

“However, the Safari browser contained functionality that then enabled other Google advertising cookies to be set on the browser [by other advertising companies using the DoubleClick network]. We didn’t anticipate that this would happen, and we have now started removing these advertising cookies from Safari browsers. It’s important to stress that, just as on other browsers, these advertising cookies do not collect personal information.”

“Users of Internet Explorer, Firefox and Chrome were not affected. Nor were users of any browser (including Safari) who have opted out of our interest-based advertising program using Google’s Ads Preferences Manager.”⁽³⁾

     [SOAPBOX=ON] This has got to be the one of the most troublesome news items to ever hit the internet in the past year. Google, the same company that will soon be compiling and integrating its accounts and privacy policies from the many Google-held internet websites, such as You Tube and Google +⁽⁴⁾, the same Google that just received the go-ahead to buy smartphone manufacturer Motorola Mobility⁽⁵⁾, just got caught doing something that users thought that it could not do, and by buying Apple and using Safari, implicitly did not want it to do.

     The implications of this are far-reaching. If Google is capable of engaging in shady shenanigans such as this, how many other such shenanigans are they really currently pulling? Think about it. How many of us have our browsers set to use the Google search engine by default? How many of us have Google’s toolbar? (I was one of these users until recently, electing to strip away as many added extras as I could, just in case something like this actually happened!) How many users have Google’s Chrome browser installed? How many of us enjoy the feature-packed offerings of “Google Earth” and “Picasa”? How many of us have recently climbed on the Google + bandwagon?

     At this point, one has to ask themselves if they are ready to surrender what remains of their internet anonymity. Ladies and gentlemen, since its inception in 1998, Google has become almost “God-like” in its omni-presence on the internet. With the purchase of Motorola’s Mobility business, it has more firmly leveraged itself in the mobile / cloud computing arena as well. I would encourage each and every one of you to ask this question of your state and federal representatives and senators; what is Google’s real gameplan, and where is the accountability?

The Vatican: Power over prophylactics?

     In another effort to impact healthcare, the Obama Administration, acting through the Department of Health and Human Services issued a ruling last week, mandating that all employers provide free access to contraception for their female employees. As a result, the Catholic church, which is vehemently opposed to all forms of birth control, mounted a protest. In response to this, president Obama announced a modification to the rule last Friday. Under the proposed accomodation, Catholic-affiliated employers would not have to shoulder the costs of contraception. Instead, these costs would be paid by the insurance companies.

     At first, it seemed that the accomodation would be accepted. After some discussion though, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a statement rejecting the proposed change, while at the same time Catholic Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington, called upon both Catholics and non-Catholics alike to oppose the Obama policy. In addition, Catholics have derided the policy as an “attack on religious liberty.”

     Cardinal Wuerl, during an appearance on the Fox News program “America’s Newsroom,” had this to say regarding his hopes for support from the citizenry;

    ”There’s one thing in the heart of this nation that we’re counting on, and that’s the basic fairness of the American people.”⁽¹⁾

     [SOAPBOX=ON] Alright Cardinal Wuerl, I’ll give it to you in all fairness. There are a number of things that I find problematic about this whole affair, mostly on the part of the Catholic church, but also on the part of the government. First of all, the “attack on religious liberty” is not coming from the government in this case. It is once again, coming from the church! Freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion. I find it unconscionable that any Catholic-run hospital or other employer would seek to impose its religious proclivities on employees that, in many cases, may not even be Catholics themselves. (Not every employee of places like Mercy Medical Center in Merced, California is a Catholic!) That would be tantamount to saying that, if I work for a Catholic-affiliated hospital, that all of my choices in life must be in line with Catholic doctrines and dogmas. I have one thing to say to that; go fish.

     On the flip-side of the debate, I’m wondering why it is that the proposed coverage for contraception is only for females, and not males as well. Is the government suggesting that women have more sex than men do? Why make contraception and / or safer sex the responsibility of the woman, by default? In my not-so-humble opinion, the man is just as responsible for this! Also, why make it mandatory for employers to provide contraception for free? Just like the sex act is a choice, practicing safer sex is also a choice, albeit a prudent one. It is for this reason that I disagree with the Health and Human Services policy. This would be along the same lines as the government telling insurers and employers that they now have to pay for things like tummy tucks, breast augmentations and plastic surgery, all of which are elective procedures.

     It is things like this that drive the cost of healthcare and health insurance up, instead of down. It is also things like this that show just how power-hungry the Catholic church still is. It’s no wonder we have people like Nicki Minaj, openly mocking the church during a protracted “self-exorcism” performance at Sunday night’s Grammy Awards. If the church would just stop trying to run healthcare according to the Vatican’s edicts, and start acting in the best interests of all of the citizens it serves, maybe things would get a whole lot better.

     I believe in the equal protections and rights under the laws of this country, for everyone. As is stated at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance, “…with liberty, and justice, for ALL.” Period. That doesn’t mean “…with liberty and justice for all, except those sexually deviant homos!” No, I’d like to believe that I’m a bit more rational and open-minded than all of that. Therefore, I am again, definitely pro-marriage equality.^{(1) (2) (3)}

     I believe that our borders need to be secure. Given the events surrounding and subsequent to September 11th of 2001, I feel that our government has been sorely remiss in its duty to its citizenry, by ensuring that the nation’s borders are safeguarded. In addition to this, our interactions with other nations have been problematic, at best. Shortly after 9-11, we embroiled ourselves in a protracted war in Iraq, one that was engaged in under false pretenses, managed haphazardly and left with too many ends untied. Geo-politics and national security are inexorably joined at the hip, if you will, and it is imperative that our government come to a greater realisation of that fact.^{(4) (5) (6)}

     I believe that any discussion regarding Roe v. Wade must include the woman. It has been the practice of the fundamentalists to continuously debate women’s rights, focusing solely on the fetus and completely disregarding the simple question, “What about the woman?” I have also noticed that the majority of people engaging in this exclusionary approach to the debate are men. I find this to be disgustingly chauvinistic, bordering at times on misogyny. The fight for women’s rights is far from over, but I have taken up the pen / keyboard, and vow to do my level best to further this cause!

     Likewise, I believe that the issue of women’s health, as recently highlighted by the shake-ups at the Komen Foundation, needs to be delivered from the demon of politicisation. If we have the ability to fund organisations and offices to do proper breast screenings, then let’s do that and keep the politics to a minimum! (Kudos to Komen for finally coming to their senses!)^(7) (8)

     I believe in the necessary separation of church and state. Our government is a Republic, and not a Theocracy. It was never meant to be a Theocracy. Our founding fathers knew this instinctively, hence the reason for things like the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, enumerated in the first amendment. Thomas Jefferson knew this, and it was he that coined the phrase “separation of church and state” in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. As a result, I have taken an active position against Dominionism. (The active attempts of organised religion to influence the policies and politics of the state.)⁽⁹⁾

     As long as we’re talking U.S. Constitution, I also believe in the right of the people to bear arms, as enumerated in the second amendment.

     I believe that our educational systems are broken, on a herculean scale. No Child Left Behind was a good idea, but has since been taken into bad places. In addition, the arrogance and ignorance of select persons within the compulsory education system has all too often resulted in catastrophic failure, as has recently been witnessed in such places as Miramonte Elementary School in Los Angeles, where it became necessary to remove the entire staff of a school due to the demon of child molestation.

     Our nation’s colleges are not much better, specifically community colleges. Little more than money-pits, it has become quite commonplace for students to be “wait-listed” for courses that they require to complete a degree, for entire courses to be cancelled from the schedule and for counselors to approach their jobs with a “Laissez-faire,” devil-may-care attitude. In short, the nation needs to fix this broken down hulk. We the people need to sit down with our legislators, and come up with a viable, sustainable plan to enact real change.^{(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)}

     Ladies and gentlemen, these are just the highlights. I’ve addressed all of these in various articles throughout the past six months, and I would encourage each of you to follow the superscript links to read those individual pieces. If you agree with what I’ve stated here, then please feel free to comment! If you disagree, then by all means, let’s engage in some dialogue, because it is only through meaningful communication and discussion of the issues, that anything meaningful will be accomplished!

For every "share," 1 point will be added to the ripeness scale.

     As more and more people find their way onto sites such as Facebook and Twitter, the inherent vulnerabilities of the “human condition” are carried onto these networks as well. My fine young readers, what I will be explaining to you in this article is something that has been happening since the early days of electronic mail, and even earlier in the form of faxes and mass-mailings. In our current day and age, it’s called the “share hoax.”

     Please allow me to first explain the reason behind writing this most important of articles; I’m concerned. I’m troubled by the implications to the very websites that we rely on to stay in touch with our friends around the world. It’s not that I’m angry with the people who are unwittingly creating these vulnerabilities…I’m not. I just wish that more people would pay a bit of attention to what they are doing online, instead of simply engaging in emotional, “knee-jerk” reactions. But I digress, on to the “meat and potatoes” of the matter.

     Earlier today, I noticed a picture appear in my Facebook “news feed.” The picture, one of a scarred and abused puppy, was accompanied by a message that for every “share” of the picture, a dollar would be donated by the Humane Society to pay for this poor puppy’s care. Now, I tend to be a more logical than emotional thinker, so this immediately set off my “BS alert.” Aside from already knowing that the Humane Society does not do things like this through Facebook, I decided to do a bit of “on-the-fly” datamining. I popped open another browser tab, and googled the term “a dollar donated humane society,” looking for any Snopes articles in the results. Sure enough!⁽¹⁾

     This is just the latest permutation of the share hoax. Others have included stories such as that of the fictitious “Amy Bruce,” a 7-year-old dying of lung cancer,⁽²⁾ and another of a baby dying of facial cancer.⁽³⁾ In each of these cases, the accompanying text states that some charitable entity will donate a specific sum for every share of the picture.

     Ladies and gentlemen, these hoaxes are specifically designed to play on the emotions of the user. The perpetrators behind these hoaxes, either instinctively or logically, know that the best way to get you to do something that they want you to do, is to give those ol’ heartstrings a tug. In addition to this, these hoaxes also take advantage of the user’s unawareness of how the charities or businesses mentioned actually work.

     “And don’t just follow your heart, man; ’cause your heart can be deceived. But you gotta lead your heart.”
(from the 2008 film, “Fireproof.”)

     Now, I’m not saying that emotion and compassion are bad things. Actually, the world could do with a lot more compassion! What I’m saying is that people need to pay a bit more attention and be a little more cautious, especially when they’re online. Don’t just take the ability to share that photo or link for granted, because you may just be unwittingly helping to take down the very website you’re using!

     Internet hacker group Anonymous has been successful in breaching sites belonging to federal agencies, law enforcement unions and other public and private concerns. In January of this year, a video surfaced on the internet in which the creator, claiming to represent Anonymous, stated that the group would seek to shut down Facebook.⁽⁴⁾ One has to ask themselves, how Anonymous would be capable of doing this. As any good tactician will tell you, before mounting any kind of active attack on a target, the would-be attacker first engages in passive measures designed to figure out the target’s weaknesses.

     If I were a hacker bent on taking down Facebook, I would definitely use human vulnerabilities to help me do it. Why work hard, when you can work smart, while using others to further your objectives? How would I put this plan into action? I would use a “share hoax” to track how “ripe” a network is for the spread of a more malicious piece of code. If several thousand people are “wearing their heart on their Facebook wall,” I now know that I can attach a tiny bit of virus code to a picture or link of a poor puppy or baby, state that it / he / she is suffering, and tug on the user’s heartstrings to get them to spread it around for me. From that point, success is pretty much fait accompli.

     What I’m getting at here, is for the users of online services such as Facebook and others, to be a bit more prudent in their use of these services. Right now, Facebook is free. If Zuckerberg, et. al. have to start taking drastic measures to ensure that their sites stay up and protected from these attacks however, then look for that to change, and rightly so.

Another victory for Marriage Equality in the US

     “Tuesday’s child is full of grace…”

     Immediately on the heels of news regarding Komen, comes another related item that spells trouble for the conservative agenda in the United States. In a 2 – 1 decision by a three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a lower court’s 2010 ruling on California Proposition 8′s unconstitutionality has been upheld. The lower court ruled in 2010 that the voter-approved measure infringed on the civil rights of the LGBT community. In its ruling today, the panel’s majority position stated that;

    ”Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

     Attorneys representing the supporters of Proposition 8, along with the two couples that have petitioned the courts to overturn the ban, have both said that they would follow the appeals process, all the way up to SCOTUS if they did not receive a favorable ruling in the matter.⁽¹⁾

     This news follows Washington state’s pending adoption of new legislation that would legalise same-sex marriage. Last week, the state senate passed the legislation in a 28 – 21 vote. This week, the bill will go through the state’s House of Representatives, where passage has been claimed to be likely according to state senator Ed Murray, the bill’s sponsor. Washington state governor Christine Gregoire has stated that she would sign the bill into law if it arrives on her desk. Opponents to Marriage Equality may challenge the bill if it becomes law, with a push to bring the question before voters in November.⁽²⁾

     Likewise, the Los Angeles-based gay rights group Love, Honor, Cherish has plans to start gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative geared toward repealing Proposition 8.

     In this writer’s own humble opinion, a defeat of Proposition 8 must result in a re-evaluation of DOMA’s own constitutionality. If SCOTUS upholds that any provision in state laws that limits marriage to “one man and one woman” is a violation of the civil rights of LGBT citizens, then the Defense of Marriage Act cannot be upheld either. Once DOMA is put in its rightful place, (six feet under!) then real progress in the battle for LGBT equal rights can be realised.

Handel's "Ms. See-ya!"

     Hot off of the presses; Komen veep Karen Handel has resigned from the foundation as part of the fallout from last week’s highly-controversial decision by Komen, to cease funding grants to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In a letter of resignation to the org, Handel stated that she was;

    ”…deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it…I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve.”⁽¹⁾

     Handel’s role in the controversy has been a subject of contention, with Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker having previously stated that Handel had no part in the defunding decision.⁽²⁾ Three days after announcing the decision to defund, Komen reversed course, citing the backpedal as being in the best interests of the women that the organization serves.

     In a statement acknowledging Handel’s departure, Brinker stated the following:

     “We have made mistakes in how we have handled recent decisions and take full accountability for what has resulted, but we cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to our mission. To do this effectively, we must learn from what we’ve done right, what we’ve done wrong and achieve our goal for the millions of women who rely on us…I have known Karen for many years, and we both share a common commitment to our organization’s lifelong mission, which must always remain our sole focus. I wish her the best in future endeavors.”

     Ms. Karen Handel ran unsuccessfully for the office of Governor of Georgia in 2010, on a conservative platform. During her run, Handel was supported by other far-right conservatives, including former 2008 Republican veep candidate Sarah Palin, who stumped for Karen during her campaign.⁽³⁾

     At any rate, one thing is for sure; that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has, in the past week, created its own identity crisis. Will it be “Komen for the Conservative Cause,” “Komen for the Cure” or learn how to equitably balance the two, if that is even possible?

     Long before I started this weblog, I made the conscious decision not to use it to falsely attack or defame any single person. Defamation is one of those things that I tend to take very seriously; not only due to the legal ramifications, but also because I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, unless they’re a public figure that has said or done something so against the grain that it has already been vetted out in the mainstream media. Then again, calling someone out who is not a public figure, over publicly posted statements on a publicly viewable Facebook page is another matter entirely…

     I’m going to break with my rule regarding a focus on private citizens, and I’m doing this for a good reason; to expose the mindset behind the issue of bullying and intolerance where LGBT youth are concerned. The person whose comments I will be exposing, parsing and refuting here is a Facebook user named “Shima Uma.” Since there are several Shima Umas listed on Facebook, some degree of anonymity will be maintained. In addition to this, in an unusual step for The Cybersattva weblog, I will be posting the actual screenshots of this user’s comments so that everyone who reads this article will know that I am not simply making any of this up. (I will also be using linked text source citations, as opposed to the customary superscript notations.)

     The important thing to keep in mind here is the differentiation between out-and-out “Homophobia” and simple, uninformed youthful ignorance. Shima Uma fits into the category of the latter, being a young (possibly even high-school aged) female. A quick perusal of her Facebook page reveals a conservative bent on issues. Within the past day, she has posted several comments to the Support Viki Knox page on Facebook. Let’s begin by observing what she has to say regarding the LGBT community on the whole;

     From the point of view of the “traditionalist” or conservative crowd, there’s just something “not right” about LGBT people, something that the former does not understand about the latter. It has been my observation (and experience, I still remember what it was like to be young!) that youth tend to be far more reactionary than rational, given to basal instincts and behavior(s). Fear of the unknown is a basal instinct, one that has played a significant role in the survival of humans throughout our time on this “big blue marble.” As a response to this fear, we have developed the “fight or flight” reaction. If we think we have a strong advantage over that which we fear, we attack it. If we doubt the advantage, we flee. Since words and ideas are easier to fight with, verbal and typographical attacks become the default reaction in this case. For the uninformed, the only way to possibly overcome this fear / attack cycle is through information and enlightenment.

You gotta be cruel to be kind?

     Shima posted these words from her perspective; that others who were angered by what she was positing on the page were posting things about her, that she was “telling the truth” and that since she wasn’t about to be “hurt by their meanness,” she blocked the respondant(s). In fact, the same can be said about her initial statements; that she was posting things about people and a concept that she was attacking, even in the face of these people (the LGBT community) being truthful, and that these people could be quite hurt by her meanness.

     Now let’s look at some of the “truths” that she posits:

Thank God, we've found a cure!

     Having googled this, I found several conservative websites that posit this misconception, including WND (formerly WorldNet Daily) and Hobbs Ministries. Again, this is a case of willful ignorance being propagated to the uninformed youth. While it is true that abstinence may slow the spread of many STDs including HIV, it is not a “cure” per se, since a cure would also be applicable to those already infected with the virus. Also, there are several other vectors for transmission of STDs other than intercourse, including blood transfusion, intravenous drug use and incidental blood-blood contact (e.g., a “good samaritan” in the same vehicle accident as a poz person assists that person without either knowing that the poz person is in fact poz, by whatever means.) Oh, but don’t take my word as gospel folks, these facts can also be readily found online, in such places as the UK Coalition website.

     Shima also makes the assumption (something she holds as being “truth”) that all gay people are sexually active. This also, is not entirely accurate. She goes on in the same thread to explain the origins of the HIV virus…or more accurately, her misguided assumptions as to its origins;

A new version of the "Monkey Trial"?

     Let’s get this straight. According to our resident “expert” (keeping in mind that an “ex” is a has-been, and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure!) Shima Uma, HIV happened because a man had intercourse with a monkey, and that’s a “fact.” (Pardon me at this point, fine young readers, while I snee…..ah…ah….BULLSH**! Sorry, I’m just highly allergic to bullsh**.) Given the behavior of simians in the wild, I find this extremely unlikely, and so do several established authorities in such fields as Anthropology and Epidemiology. The leading theory (and it’s all “best guess,” since we weren’t there to witness the event!) is that the practice of “Bushmeat hunting” caused the transmission of the SIV virus between simians and man, at which point SIV mutated into HIV. (HIV has been traced back to the SIV virus.) Applying the principle of “Occam’s Razor” (latin: lex parsimoniae) in this case seems not only prudent, but also feasible. As before, please do not take my word as gospel…instead see the correlating data here, and here.

     Also evident in the above thread is the degree of Shima Uma’s committment to her lie (yes, let’s call a spade a spade at this point!) in that she will go so far as to actively block those who disagree, thereby willfully disregarding any evidence that contradicts or debunks the lie. It is at this point, that true homophobia starts to emerge. Youthful ignorance crosses over into willful ignorance, which precludes the possibility of rational thought. As we all know from previous discussion on the topic, homophobia is an “extreme or irrational fear or aversion to homosexuals and / or homosexuality.”

     Being as Shima Uma is still young, I don’t blame her entirely for this saddening display of utter ignorance. I blame the people that are providing her examples. I blame her parents, her teachers and her role models. I blame the people who are providing the rhetoric and talking points that she’s drawing from, to form the opinions (not facts!) that she has formed. The thing to pity here, is that this young woman will quite likely go on to pass these misconceptions and prejudices on to the next generation.

     Update, 07 February: Prod someone enough, and they’ll let on a bit more as to who they are. It seems that Shima Uma is actually in her forties! (A forty-something female who is also a ComicCon fan and plays D&D?) Reading her posts since this article was published, it becomes even more evident that this person is entrenched in the mire of willful ignorance and discriminatory language where the LGBT community is concerned. Sadly, homophobia has claimed another victim.

Susan G. Komen for...?

     There’s a storm brewing in the skies above America. It’s pink-tinged clouds are hurling bolts of incendiary lightning back and forth, and there’s little indication as to when the skies will clear. Indeed, this is a storm of a feminine nature and scope; a fiery debate of breasts and babies. One would think that these two things would be complimentary of each other, like pie and ice cream or a burger and a bun… but not, it seems, when it comes to the national debate over Roe v. Wade.

     Pretty pink ribbons have adorned store walls, products and ads for sometime now, all due to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. The endeavour was started in 1982 by Ms. Nancy Brinker, a former U.S. ambassador to Hungary and Chief of Protocol under the Bush (43) administration, as a result of her sister’s death from breast cancer. Since then, the foundation has grown to encompass several areas of breast cancer activism, including advocacy, research, education and supportive services, and is one of the most trusted 501c non-profit organisations worldwide. Through the funding of Planned Parenthood, Komen has provided opportunities for low-income women to receive breast cancer screenings and other supportive services, however as the latest news would have it, that has changed…or has it?

     About two days ago, Komen announced that it was cutting funding to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for it’s breast cancer screening program. According to the Komen Foundation, this action was taken as a result of the recent adoption of stricter criteria that bar grants to organisations that are under investigation by the government. Of particular added interest in this story, is the recent (April, 2011) hiring of new Komen vice-president Karen Handel, former Georgia Secretary of State and vociferous abortion opponent. Also, Ms. Brinker has stated that the Komen Foundation is not in fact “defunding” Planned Parenthood per se;

     “We have three grants that will go on this year, and they will probably be eligible for the next grant cycle…”

     According to Planned Parenthood advocates, the decision to cease funding of PPFA is politically-motivated, resulting from pressure by anti-abortion advocacy groups, which are also responsible for prompting the government investigation of PPFA. Supporters of PPFA are also citing the Handel connection in their assertions that Komen has bowed under pressure. But let me back up for just a second, and mention that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is currently being investigated by a congressional sub-comittee, due to concerns that taxpayer money may have been used to fund abortions. Since the announcement, both groups have seen a significant increase in donations; Komen from pro-life advocates, and PPFA from pro-choice’ers.

     To the weather eye, it appears that Komen might be concerned that their funds are also being used to pay for abortions, which would explain their announced decision to break with PPFA, since those funds are supposed to be being used for breast cancer screenings and other related services. According to a Christian Science Monitor article on the matter, “…the bottom line is that Komen has cut funding for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health programs at Planned Parenthood affiliates.”⁽¹⁾ If Nancy Brinker is to be believed though, this is not quite the case. Ms. Brinker has also stated that Karen Handel played no part in the funding decision, which I find to be a problematic statement at best.

Pink stuff

     Either way, the issue has women on both sides of the debate worked into a frenzy, and rightly so. During my evening on Facebook, I have noted several comments made by female friends of mine, posted to the Komen page. A few hastily-drawn pictures have even found their way into my newsfeed, one of them posted to the right in this article so that you, my fine young readers, can get an idea of some of what’s being said.⁽²⁾ As I stated in the opening of the article, this is one storm that is just rolling in, and I don’t think we’ve seen the full amount of precipitation that it will bring just yet.

     UPDATE, February 3, 2012: It seems that Komen has now reversed its previously announced plans for defunding PPFA, amidst the firestorm of controversy. Now they’ve bowed to pressure…from the public!⁽³⁾