The Spencerian

The Death-Knell of a Brand: Susan G. Komen

Worst Week in the World goes to the folks at the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization, whose leadership managed to immolate their brand almost overnight.  They did it by pulling their funding from Planned Parenthood, an organization with whom they shared a long-standing partnership.  Planned Parenthood offers an array of services to women and families, but lately they have been demonized because they also happen to be an abortion provider.  [I shouldn't have to point this out, but I will: it's an election year, and if you are at all curious who is doing the demonizing, well, you can blame Republican operatives working out of the RNC headquarters in Washington, D.C., writing what they hope will be successful talking points for whatever lunatic Republican candidate will take them.  More on this in a minute.]

Why would the Komen people do this?  Why would they pull their funding from an organization like Planned Parenthood, which wasn't even providing abortions with their Komen dollars -- they were offering breast screenings and exams.

Of course, they must have had a good reason.  Their founder, Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker, said that it had to do with a re-structured grants and funding system.

As a guy who works for a community funder, I can sympathize with that argument.  

The problem is, there is a preponderance of evidence which would suggest that the whole "grants re-structuring" thing is, well, a load of crap.  

First of all, Ambassador Brinker, the sister of the actual Susan G. Komen, who died of breast cancer in 1980 at the age of 36, is a pretty well-credentialed Republican.  She was a multiple George W. Bush appointee, serving on the Board of Trustees for the Kennedy Center, as the Chief of Protocol in the Bush Administration, and as Bush's Ambassador to Hungary.  

She served on a committee monitoring R & D in breast cancer research presided over by then-Vice President Dan Quayle.

She was a George H.W. Bush appointee to the President's Cancer Panel.  And in 1986, Reagan appointed her to the National Cancer Advisory Board.

Well, maybe simply analyzing the political affiliation of the founder of the organization is unfair.  

Problem is, there's more.  Look at what Karen Handel re-tweeted:

Oh, you don't know who Karen Handel is.  Sorry about that.

Turns out she is more than just Georgia's former Secretary of State, as stated in her Twitter bio.  

She is the Senior Vice President for Public Policy for Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and the fact that she would re-tweet what you've read above (from a Republican political operative, no less) ought to be testament enough to Komen's tone-deafness of this whole affair.  

Though I'd say the connection to conservative politics is a bit more tenuous here, a lot of folks have found this page, complete with a slightly unnerving picture of a pink Walther .22 handgun, and wondered aloud how Komen could value a sponsorship with an instrument of death and carnage more than an organization which actually does the good work they, well, used to fund.

Lest you accuse me of suggesting this conservative-lead organization is engaging in bad public policy based solely on their conservatism alone, let me take the time to note that this move was widely protested within the Komen organization itself.  Seven Komen affiliates in California registered a very public protest of the move.  Komen affiliates in Oregon, Washington and Puget Sound protested the move as well.

But the real proof came from a Komen board member himself, published in the New York Times today:

Komen’s founder and chief executive, Nancy G. Brinker, held a news conference Thursday and insisted that the organization’s decision had nothing to do with abortion or politics. Rather, she said, it resulted from improved grant-making procedures and was not intended to make a target of Planned Parenthood.

“We think this is the right thing to do from a stewardships standpoint,” Ms. Brinker said.

Her comments directly contradicted those of John D. Raffaelli, a Komen board member and Washington lobbyist, who told The New York Times on Wednesday that Komen made the changes to its grant-making process specifically to end its relationship with Planned Parenthood. Mr. Raffaelli said that Komen had become increasingly worried that an investigation of Planned Parenthood by Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, would damage Komen’s credibility with donors.

 You've got to hate it when that happens.

For me, I saw the personal impact this bone-headed move had through my friend Laura Jane.  She had done one of the 60 mile walks at one point, and it was a source of great (and well-earned) pride for her.  I damn sure couldn't have done it.  I could sense her disappointment and sadness in a recent Facebook post, in which she lamented the decision.  

This is such a shame. When I raised over $2000 and walked 60 miles for these folks it was, in large part, because they provided these types of grants so women could receive free and reduced cost mammograms. These mammograms save lives, I sorta thought that's what Susan G Koman was all about. 

I am assuming since LJ posted this popular Facebook graphic not long after that post, the Komen people have pretty much lost her:

She's not the only one.

As Mayor Bloomberg, who made an immediate matching donation to Planned Parenthood, said so well, “Politics have no place in health care. Breast cancer screening saves lives and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way.”

The Komen folks lost the faith of good people like my friend Laura Jane.  They lost policy leaders.  They lost activists.  And they lost those who have been affected by cancer.  

Is it impossible for them to rebuild the brand?  No, and I am sure they will try.  But it will a long, slow process.  It is a process almost as painful as the one which they must undertake in order to de-tangle themselves from the wrong side of the political tracks.

# # # #

UPDATE: After a week of pressure, Komen has reversed their position and will keep ties with Planned Parenthood.

"We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities," Komen said in a statement.

That's great and everything, but I'm not so sure the damage hasn't already been done.   

# # # #

UPDATE II: Here's the inevitable apology.

An Open Letter to My Daughter on the Occasion of Her Second Birthday

I wrote anopen letter to Emeline when she was born, which was, as of today, two years ago.

Here's a new one for her. 

# # # #

Dear Emeline: 

Walking out to my car the other day, I stopped and looked at the setting sun, red and glorious.  Pink clouds blanketed the fading blue sky.  A big flock of birds dotted the horizon.  A little closer, some egrets were celebrating an early dinner in the marsh field near my office building.  Frogs were tuning up for their evening rituals, though you had to listen for them over the cricket noises.  

You would have loved it.  I could almost hear your go-to question you pepper us with over and over again: "What dat noise?  What dat noise?  What dat noise?"  

Your nearly-insatiable curiosity: it is one of my favorite things about you, which is saying something because you are turning into a great person with many, many wonderful qualities.

I hope you stay curious.  I hope you keep that inquisitive sense about you for a lifetime.  I promise, it will serve you well later in life.

Unfortunately, we're living in a time where curiosity and a sense of wanting to fill the empty spaces in our minds has been devalued, almost to nothing.  We live in a world of selective facts.  You can simply deny the truth, and when you deny it enough times, that falsehood becomes true for you.  You can choose a predetermined world in which an entire belief structure is preconceived for your convenience.

We're living in a world where intellectual curiosity has been vilified.  The quest to expand our own knowledge -- and our collective knowledge -- is derided as elitist.

One of the things I want for you very much is for you to make your own decisions about who you are and what you believe.  The way you get there, though, is by asking questions.  If you just turn on the TV and wait for some talking head to tell you what to believe, well, you'll eventually believe anything... even if it's not true.

As for our nation, I'm hoping this is just an unfortunate phase our country is going through (kind of like with you and sleeping these days, but that's a conversation for another place and time).  Don't worry, I believe our country will get better.  We don't really have much choice.  

As for you, I'm hoping that as you get older, you'll never stop asking: What dat noise?  

The sun sets in the west, and birds fly and sing, crickets chirp and froggies croak.  Today you're asking what those noises are.  Tomorrow, I hope you ask why.   

Q & A: I Pledge

Dear Spencerian Editors:

A member of my extended family recently posted the following along with the picture [a quaint picture of children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in their school] in a Facebook post.  When I questioned this, I was told it came from a reliable source.  I questioned it because my wife's son "Pledges Allegiance" every morning at his Elementary School, and as a part of the morning show team there, leads the school.  In fact, earlier this year (he is in fifth grade) he was taught about its origins, its meaning and why it is said.  I am sure as this year progresses I am going to see more of these and other contentious subjects, but as someone who is learning about his new home - I have been here since May 2010 - as someone who wants to discuss and form views and opinions I would rather be
dealing with facts.

Following is the content from the Facebook post:

"I remember....every morning when I was a kid....When I taught special ed. in B'ham....we did it, even tho. many of my students were unable to recite, but stood with their hand on their heart with the rest of them...That is just awful that this has been removed from school....It's an American tradition, & it should still be part of school....Those offended can just sit in their seats & not participate......I'm sick of this BS...politically correctness & walking on egg shells around people we might offend....If you are privilaged to be an American, than this you must do......Just sayin'....& with that, I hope I didn't offend anyone....& if I did...just climb on board with me, & you won't be offended."

I have done a little research and can only find instances in Boston and something about Federal Judges agreeing with a ban in 2002.

Many thanks on advance,

Andrew H.

# # # #

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you for your question, Andrew.  That right there is the full, modern-day Pledge, just in case.

There have been numerous legal challenges around the Pledge of Allegiance over the years, particularly as it relates to having it recited in schools.  There seem to be a couple of big sticking points with those who oppose the idea of making it mandatory for children to recite it in school.  

The first is the sort of "indoctrination" piece -- is it really right to force children to pledge loyalty to their nation and their nation's flag when they don't really have a choice?  

The second question comes up around the "under God" piece.  Pop quiz, Andrew: when was "under God" incorporated into the Pledge (hint: the Pledge has been around since 1892 and those words have not always been there).

The answer is: 1954.  

Before 1954, no one had bothered to think about changing it that much.  A Scottish-born Presbyterian Minister named George MacPherson Docherty was the guy who did the heavy lifting to get the words "under God" incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.  

It's kind of a nifty story, but the short version is, Docherty invoked the words of President Abraham Lincoln with the then-President (and recent Presbyterian convernt) Dwight Eisenhower in attendance.   Docherty said that the idea of God was the "definitive factor in the American way of life," and that Lincoln had used the phrase "under God" to set America apart from other nations.  Congress passed a joint resolution, and Eisenhower signed it into law on Flag Day.

Think about that, though: 1954.  You can debate whether or not we should have the words "under God" incorporated into our national identity -- an identity which prides itself (or used to) on the idea of a diversity of faiths, beliefs, and dogmas.  That idea is in fact a core principle of the founding of our nation.  The idea that we're a nation "under God" was certainly never the intention of the Founding Fathers.

So let's talk about what that Facebook post is really about, which is this phony baloney "war on religion," or "war on Christianity." I had a relevant post on this the other day, via Mustang Bobby at Bark Bark Woof Woof, and his link from Melissa McEwan, who wrote:

Yes, everywhere I look there is evidence we are about to become a godless society, like: Our Christian president, our last Christian president, their almost exclusively Christian administrations who relentlessly pander to conservative and/or moderate Christians, the almost totally Christian Supreme Court, an almost entirely Christian Congress who start each session with a prayer, the millions and millions of other American Christians whose day of worship is still respected in various state laws across the country (like in Indiana, where you still can't shop for a car or buy booze on a Sunday), whose views are reflected in various federal laws (like denying same-sex couples the right of marriage in order to protect its "sanctity"), whose holidays are also national holidays, whose holy book must be sworn on in state and federal courts, and whose churches are not required to pay taxes, guaranteed freedom of religion, money that says "In God We Trust," a pledge of allegiance that describes us as "one nation under God," television networks who will accept advertising from conservative religious groups but not liberal political groups, schools who are incorporating a religious belief into science classes, conscience clauses for pharmacists and healthcare providers, religion-based residential communities being built, religious museums and amusement parks springing up all over the country, religious leaders being given diplomatic immunity, faith-based initiatives being federally funded, and our national media being constantly embroiled in a debate about in which god the president believes.

GOP front-runner Mitt Romney may believe that President Obama has engaged in some sort of "assault on religion," but I'm having a hard time seeing it.  At the National Prayer Breakfast -- held today -- President Obama said "Christian faith guides his policies."  (Read the full text of his remarks here.)

So what to do about kids in school who are either required or "strongly encouraged" to recite the Pledge of Allegiance"? (Which is to really ask, what to do about largely voiceless children who are shamelessly used as a political cudgle in what amounts to a culture war grudge match.)

Indeed, Andrew, legal challenges have faced the Pledge since the 1950s up to the last couple of years.

In a 2010 case called Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the words "under God" were "of a ceremonial and patriotic nature," and did not constitute the establishment of religion.  

That wasn't the only only legal proceedings on the matter in 2010.  The First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously said the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate student's rights.  The U.S. Supreme court appeal of this decision was denied (meaning the ruling of the First Circuit was upheld).  

There was an interesting story on this very subject on NPR just a few months ago.

Andrew, from my view, this is an easy one in which to be dismissive: Oh, just make the kids say it.  Builds character.  Makes them patriotic.

My problem with that is that patriots aren't made through pledges -- they're made through experiences which endear them to their country.  

I love my country.  Not because I stand in front of a flag and hold my hand over my heart and recite a pledge, but because of the freedom I had to experience new things, the opportunity I had to learn and grow and become the individual I am today.  I owe, in some part, my individuality to my country.  Freedom.  Opportunity.  That's what breeds patriots.   

 Thanks for the question, Andrew.

# # # # 

I WANT TO ANSWER YOUR POLITICAL QUESTIONS: Ask away.  I'll give it my very best shot.  No question is too weird, no subject is off the table.  Just so long as it's political. 

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

Romney's "Very Poor" Moment: Stepping on the Message

It's almost like Mitt Romney doesn't know how to win.  Coming off a pretty good-sized victory here in Florida just yesterday, Mitt had this to say today:  

"I’m not concerned with the very poor. We have a safety net there," Romney told CNN. "If it needs repair, I’ll fix it."

To be clear, this wasn't a gaffe: this is Romney Campaign strategy.

"But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans," Romney continued. "My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich — that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor — that’s not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans."

And, from Romney's point of view, for good reason.  Poor people don't like him.

[As an aside, have you ever read a more stilted, awkward response?  Can you just see him replaying in his mind the conversation he had with some campaign strategist: "Governor Romney, you can choose where to focus.  The rich, middle-income Americans, or the very poor."  Unbelievable.]

From the Washington Post report:

Exit polls from Florida, where Romney won 46.4 percent of the vote in the GOP primary Tuesday, show that he had markedly less support among voters who are having a hard time making ends meet. The former Massachusetts governor was essentially tied with Gingrich among Florida voters who see their families as "falling behind financially."

This is actually a step or two beyond "I like being able to fire people," because they guy really doubled down on it.  If we're honest about the firing people comment, there was a context to it.  It was a poor choice of words, horrible phrasing, and really bone-headed.  But this is something else.  This is a conscious decision to exclude poor people as a key part of a campaign strategy.  

The campaign frame developing here on the GOP side is interesting.  You have super-rich Mitt Romney talking about "middle-income Americans" (about whom he knows nothing) while at the same time demonizing poor people.  And if you think the demonizing of poor people is not on the GOP agenda going forward, just ask Newt Gingrich, who called President Obama the "food stamp President," or even the current Congress which just seems bound and determined to waste as much of America's time as possible.

And speaking of President Obama, that's the other interesting piece for me: this idea the Republicans keep flogging that Obama is an "elite"... and "elites" are bad, even though the very good people at Dictionary.com tell me that "elite" means:

1. the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

2.  persons of the highest class.

3.  a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.

...and for the life of me, I A.) can't figure out what in the hell is wrong with that, and B.) don't see anyting untrue in at least those three with respect to President Obama.   

So the GOP is really trying out a dual frame, here: poor people suck and so do "elites" like Obama.  I have to tell you, as a communications person, I find this to be a very limiting strategy.  

Obama is bad.  He's uppity.  He's elite.  Poor people are bad.  They use their food stamps at strip clubs.  

The translation of this to any kind of coherent electoral strategy has completely eluded me.  

And Like That [Poof!] They Were Gone: The GOP Clown Car Rolls Out of Florida

Give that man a cigar!  

Okay, my prediction: I give Florida to Romney, but just barely -- and not just because that, aside from an outright loss to Gingrich, is really an ugly scenario for him and I want to blog about it forever.

Me on January 23, "The GOP Primary Conflagration Comes to Florida (and My Prediction)"

Hey, I didn't say give him a good cigar.  Turns out Romney took the Florida Primary not "just barely," but in a total rout, more than 46% to Newt's just under 32%.  Santorum came in with around 13% and Paul came in at 7%.  

What's funny is, if I'd thought about my geography a little more, I might have adjusted my language.  I did suggest that if Romney took the I-4 corridor and the heavily populated areas north of Miami, he'd win.  He did just that -- and then some.  

He also took Miami/Dade, which I thought might be a little closer than it was (60% for Romney to an anemic 26% for Newt in that county).  You can see on the TPM map (linked here, again), that Gingrich did win a handful of interior counties as well as the panhandle.

The most interesting thing about these results -- and where I may have been most right, in a mildly convoluted kind of way -- is that Newt Gingrich has vowed to press on, all the way to the convention.  At the end of my post the other day, I said:  "...Florida is on-track to make this long, bad couple of weeks for the Romney campaign even worse, and even longer."  

Well, maybe Florida is not going to make Romney's campaign even more miserable or longer -- but Newt Gingrich sure will.  Back in early January, I said, "I don't think it's over-the-top to say that Florida could lock it up for the Republicans.  Even if Mitt does so, the legacy of this primary season remains the fight he had to wage to get there."  

I guess Florida didn't "lock it up" for the GOP, but that part about the nasty legacy sure looks like it's coming true.    

# # # #

As an aside, I just want to point you to DougJ's quick piece at Balloon-Juice on the percentage of negative spots run by the Romney and Gingrich campaigns.  

Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich’s campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney’s campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.

This goes to my piece from yesterday: what reasonable person would want to be a part of this nastiness?

A Shared Politics: Why Would Anyone Do This To Themselves?

It's Republican Primary day here in Florida, though it has become apparent that the GOP candidates are not the only snakes in the grass you may find on your way to the polling station!  

Michael R. Rochford / AP

Huh?  HUH?  Get it?  Get it?

Wocka-wocka!  

I'll be here all week, ladies and gentlemen.  

Seriously, though, we need to do something about the goddam pythons.  

Okay, look: Romney's won Florida.  Gingrich has vowed to carry this thing to the Convention (August 27, right here in the Tampa Bay area, I'd remind you).  Rick Santorum appears to be fading, leaving Ron Paul who has indicated he may stick it out for a long haul as well.

You can read varying analyses on this entire scenario pretty much anywhere on the Internet.  Best of luck to you.  (As an aside, there are some local issues and names on the ballot as well -- you can go to the Tampa Bay Times article here and see what the deal is in your neck of the woods.)

I was at this training all day yesterday over in Ft. Lauderdale.  It was great.  Our trainer was talking about messaging (specifically, messaging for evidence-based practices and early childhood investment; it was a work thing), and this (true) idea that many, or even most of us in the human services world do a great job of collecting data and putting together data sets, and aggregating data, and basically just slicing and dicing data without any frame of reference.  

Where we don't necessarily do such a hot job is in telling our story, or rather, telling a story which the data supports.  Sure, there are 16.4 million American children living in poverty* (many in working families) -- but what does that mean?  What's more, who is doing something about this national disgrace?  

Isn't there some sort of common national narrative about more than 16 million kids who are less healthy, less likely to graduate from school, more likely to eventually have children of their own in poverty?

The answer is, of course there is.  Good, well-meaning people on both sides of the political spectrum work on this issue every single day.  We just don't hear about it every single day.    

Indeed, it's hard to hear narratives like that sometimes -- and even harder to get a word in, edgewise. 

I've had a handful of incidents over the course of the last several weeks which have caused me to look at my own commitment to our political process.  Sure, money has flooded the system.  The mechanisms by which everyday American can access the political system to address their grievances is corrupted.  This hobbled system is abetted by a busted media apparatus which seems only to succeed in amplifying a less and less interesting echo chamber filled with garbled nonsense.

Too often the response to a seemingly impenetrable system is to sort of figuratively throw up your hands and walk away, to sigh and say, that's it?  That's all there is?  I concede the point to my commenter from a few days ago who described "a slow boat ride with a very frustrated population all the way to the next election cycle."  

Frankly, I can't argue with that.

Look, I get it -- I really do.  It's easy to forget that our politics has become a kind of club, where only a few get to play, and the lives of everyone else are forgotten.  Or so it would seem.

See, I don't happen to believe that is the case.  I've worked in government and politics for too long, now, to give up on it.  In fact, giving up on it is the worst thing you can do.  

If you think of politics as an expression of ourselves -- a form of speech, which is really all it is, after all -- then you'd be doing pretty well to quote Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis in the Whitney v. California opinion: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

In other words, speak up.  Speak up.  Speak up and discuss those "falsehoods and fallacies."

Speak up, and avert the evil.

Maybe it's just because I've been in government and the non-profit world my whole life, but I really do think politics can make a difference.  When you see a man with Parkinson's disease talk to his own United States Senator about better federal funding for research and a cure, that's worth having done.

Yes, the lobbyists and big corporations have that kind of access and more.  Much more.  And you don't really want to have some kind of awful disease like Parkinson's to get you into the Hart or Dirksen Senate Office Buildings.  Those doors should be open wider.  They are not.  But I refuse to believe the answer is to walk away from the door.     

And that Senator didn't get there by magic.  And his or her response to their constituent on federal funding for research (and just about anything else) is going to be informed not just by their own politics, but by the road they took to get there: the campaign trail.

I'm a believer in campaigns.  I think everyone in America should experience it, at least one  It's like nothing else.  Good people do run for office.  Sometimes they win.  Too often they lose (again: fucked up system).  There's a worn old adage out there that says if you don't vote, you can't complain.  I say you can't complain if you don't work for a solution.  

Your Senator not funding federal research for diseases to your liking?  Work for a candidate who will.  Or run against him yourself. 

Running for the United States Senate aside, it's hard to know where to start or what to do because the system is so profoundly broken.  Trying to make a difference in our system is a frightening prospect, to be sure.  

Some folks may tell you that politics (and government) aren't scary at all.  Those people are lying to you.  People are powerful.  Money is powerful.  Ideas are more powerful, and campaigns are little more than people expressing their ideas.  The fuel of that expression is money.  If you're not just a little bit intimidated when you mix the campaign cocktail of people, money, and ideas, then you're not doing it right.  

Our country is worth it, though, and I believe campaigns remain a worthwhile endeavor.  Frightening, sure, but worthwhile.    

But then again, "it is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears."  Just ask Justice Brandeis.

*This is not an indictment of the good people at the Children's Defense Fund -- they just have their hands on a lot of data, and that particular snapshot certainly illustrated my point.