Let’s make sure we have this straight.  Komen, the organization that has succeeded in fetishizing the color pink to such an extent that it reaps benefits from the sales of pink guns and pink shotgun shells (THAT’S healthy!), has betrayed corporate sponsors and donors by making a politically-based decision to defund Planned Parenthood under the cover of claiming they merely meant to defund organizations “under investigation.”  So, did they defund Penn State?  Evidently the investigations at Penn State aren’t politically motivated enough for Komen to go after that grant. 

What has betraying those sponsors and donors wrought?  The Susan G. Komen brand is dragging in the mud, and the reason for that is entirely on the shoulders of those at the Susan G. Komen Foundation who made the decisions to cause this crisis.  The pink ribbon is very dirty now.  Who is hurt?  Certainly the women Komen could have helped, whether through screenings or cancer research, are harmed by the decisions of the executives and board of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.  Those who donated to Komen, whether through corporate sponsorship or through participating in a “Race for the Cure,” (this expensive litigation by Komen does NOTHING towards a “cure.“)are also harmed, because they will never know now whether the funds they donated will be subject to political maneuverings.  That’s the real problem here. 

So, what’s the “Cure” that will save the Susan G. Komen Foundation?  Get rid of the incompetents.  It seems obvious now, based on this investigative piece in The Atlantic, that the President of the Susan B. Komen Foundation, Elizabeth Thompson, and the Vice President, Karen Handel, are directly responsible for this crisis and for the severe damage to the Susan G. Komen brand.  That’s serious incompetence. 

People donate to an nonprofit organization because of trust that the organization will do good, not based on political reasons, but based on the best science out there.  Elizabeth Thompson and Karen Handel have damaged the Komen brand to such an extent it is hard to grasp whether Komen will ever recover the trust that they will follow such a standard of nonpartisanship.  They have created more harm than ever has been created within the Komen organization, and demonstrably, more harm than has hit any major nonprofit in the United States.  I can only recall one controversy as large to hit a major nonprofit in the US in my lifetime, and that was when the American Red Cross suffered distrust over their stewardship of the blood supply back in the 1990′s.  How did the Red Cross handle that crisis?  They cleaned house at the top.  That’s what the Susan G. Komen Foundation needs to do.  Elizabeth Thompson and Karen Handel need to go, as they were intimately involved in directing this decision, which is threatening to completely destroy the Komen brand.  And Nancy Brinker, who is listening to her PR folks waaaaaay too much, needs to stand up and assure the donors to the Komen Foundation that politics will never get in the way of fighting breast cancer ever again.  Ever again.  Cancer does not work along political lines, and neither should fighting cancer.

Fat chance any of that will happen.  So redirect your dollars, folks.  The American Cancer Society does good work, as does Planned Parenthood, in protecting women’s lives, and there’s not any political agenda within either of those groups besides the protection of women’s lives.

I am a man, raised in the upper middle class and still residing in same.  I am heterosexual and married.  I have read extensively in feminist theory back when I was a graduate student in Philosophy, and find a kindred link between the Foucaultian thought I focused on in school and the Standpoint strand of feminism, at least in the notion that knowledge is power, and knowledge of oneself is very powerful.  I have a lesbian sister who is married to her lesbian spouse and they have two lovely daughters and a dog.  (I’m the one who drives the Subaru.)  I have an adopted son who is African American, and we’re raising him Jewish (we’ve coached him to say “oy vey” when he meets our Rabbi, who is Russ Feingold’s sister).  I’m a Democrat, socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but I think of myself as a pragmatic with an open mind.  That said, I am often delighted at the notion of the absurd, even, perhaps especially, in politics.  There are my biases, if you can work them out.

About Tammy.  I think conventional wisdom would say that Tammy Baldwin would be the wrong candidate for the Democrats to put forward to replace Herb Kohl.  (I saw Kohl in the parade in Racine yesterday and found him positively and unhealthily skinny!)  But when I first think of Tammy Baldwin, when I first heard her name over eight years ago, I can’t think of anything but cottonwoods (and I sneeze!).  Conventional wisdom?  In 2010 Wisconsin ousted a liberal Senator and replaced him with a Tea Partier, then voted a Tea Partier beholden to big business to the Governor’s office. How in the world could a liberal lesbian possibly get voted in by the whole state?  Further, the conventional wisdom wonders why Tammy Baldwin would give up the safety of her Congressional seat to run for Senate given the energized forces of the Tea Party?  Yet I’m thinking the political conditions in this state are what give Tammy Baldwin a chance, and I suspect her character is what convinces her she should run to succeed Herb Kohl.  (And if Madison misses their gay Congressman, they can always vote for Mark Pocan. . . )

The conventional wisdom might peg Ron Kind as a moderate and thus better able to attract Republican votes, but the guy just ACTS Republican sometimes, like here, where Ron Kind he seems to be ramping up the campaign against Tammy Baldwin already.  Sure, Kind is probably right that Baldwin is running, but it’s so unseemly!  His first step on the campaign trail should not be to polish his ho hum centrist credentials, nor, given that he will likely face a woman int he primary, should Ron Kind be using the “sexy” metaphor.  That’s Republican dog whistle territory, a word choice designed to remind everyone Baldwin is a lesbian without coming out and saying so.  Ron Kind just might alienate his progressive base before this race even starts.

But Tammy Baldwin is strong and smart and honest.  Given the state of politics in this state, those qualities are bound to be refreshing.  Sure, there are a ton of Republicans and Tea Partiers who will never vote for Tammy Baldwin, either because she is progressive or because she is a lesbian.  So?  There’s still plenty of votes to be had in this state.  And voters here have seen enough dishonesty and stupidity from Ron Johnson and Scott Walker.  Tens of thousands of voters have protested the dishonesty of Walker, at least, and they’re not all that happy with the sideshow barkering of the Congressman from the district neighboring Baldwin’s, Mr. Ryan.  (Baldwin’s commitment to Medicare might just come in handy in this race.)  Don’t let Ryan’s failure to enter this Senate race be construed as anything other than that he’s afraid to run, afraid he’d lose and have to earn a living without sucking on the public teat.  Baldwin’s character is stronger by far.

Now let’s get to that little lesbian problem.  I’m betting Tammy Baldwin isn’t the only gay candidate for Senate in this country, nor the only one in Wisconsin.  I’m betting she’s also not going to be the only gay Wisconsin Senator ever, even when she wins.  Gosh, I’m the new guy on the block, arriving in Wisconsin just a year ago from Pennsylvania, but I’ve heard the rumors.  Tammy Baldwin is also smart.  Honest enough to tell reporters she’s likely to run, as Paul Fanlund notes, Tammy Baldwin is smart in going out and campaigning in the six recall elections for women hoping to unseat Republicans.  It can’t hurt to get the Baldwin name linked to the protesters in Madison (yes, I know the Repubs won’t agree with that statement, but they won’t be voting for Baldwin anyway).

I’m liking this candidacy more and more, and somewhat for the audaciousness of a lesbian running for Senate openly.  Hey, New York just approved gay marriage — is Wisconsin going to lose it’s progressive street cred to New York?  I’m thinking John Nichols might be right, that we could be at the edge of a progressive backlash, and that Tammy Baldwin could be the best candidate.  Then again, I’m the eternal optimist. . .

Still, if the only argument against Tammy Baldwin running is one steeped in conventional wisdom, then I’m all for her.  (If Tammy Baldwin needs a blogger on staff, I’m here to volunteer, too.)

A Menomonee Falls school official is demanding an apology and retraction by conservative talk show host Mark Belling for calling the official a “whore for the teachers union” earlier this week.

Walt Kelly, the attorney for Menomonee School Board member Gina Palazzari, sent his letter on Thursday to Belling and Jeff Tyler, general manager of WISN-AM (1130), which airs Belling’s afternoon show.

“Ms. Palazzari demands an on-air apology and retraction by Mr. Belling and a published apology and retraction by WISN management,” Kelly wrote.

Kelly rightly argued Belling should receive similar treatment to Ed Schultz, but speaking on his radio show, Belling made it clear he’s not sorry for he said, saying, “I will not apologize.”

Apparently Belling has moved on from racism, having called Mexicans “wetbacks” on his show in 2004, to sexism. I’m not sure if that’s progress, but either way Mark Belling is still a big sack of crap.