Nine years ago in p3: The Hobby Lobby cards were already on the table

Everything you needed to know about last week's Supreme Court decision on health care, corporations, and contraception was right there in 2005.

There are actually two sharks swimming in the waters of the commonwealth -- the Theocratic Right, yes, but also the Corporate Right (whose issues are deregulation, lowering what's left of corporate taxes, and curbing consumer rights--especially our rights to bring corporations to court).

A quantum of umbrage: A synoptic history of the separation of church and state (second revision for 2014)

James Madison, 1791: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Thomas Jefferson, 1802: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment guarantees Americans a wall of separation between church and state.

John F. Kennedy, 1960: The separation of church and state is absolute. My church will not dictate my policy decisions.

Mitt Romney, 2008: The separation of church and state is relative. My church will dictate my policy decisions, but only to the extent that I will discriminate against the same people Christian conservatives would already be discriminating against anyway.

Bart Stupack, 2009: The separation of church and state is a fairy tale. My church will show up at the Capitol steps in a limo to dictate policy.

Rick Santorum, 2012: The separation of church and state is an abomination. "Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech [by JFK to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960], and I almost threw up."

Sally Quinn, 2012: The separation of church and state is impossible. “This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian.” Agnostics, atheists, and other nonbelievers need not apply.

The Roberts Court, May 2014: The separation of church and state is unconstitutional. Public meetings may now begin with explicitly Christian prayer, and those who don't like it are advised by Justice Kennedy to "ignore" it.

The Roberts Court, June 2014: The separation of church and state only applies to those non-conservative non-christian denominations not represented on the Supreme Court; persons (carbon-based or contract-based) of a favored religious denomination can opt out of laws that go against their sincerely-held religious beliefs. 

"The hosts will have only a few months of discomfort and inconvenience, though of course their careers must be set aside for a time."

As a salute to the five men on the Supreme Court who decided this week that corporations (which are persons) could make unilateral decisions to interfere with their female employees' access to insurance-covered contraception, at least partly on the mistaken grounds that all contraceptives work by aborting the tiny little blastocysts (which are also persons) inside those female employees (who, as it turns out, are apparently not really persons themselves), p3 proudly reminds our readers of this excerpt from Sheri Tepper's great science fiction adventure satire The Fresco.

Have fun.

There are no words

Perhaps they're trying to ease our sense of loss and separation

The Oregonian, the only state-wide daily we have here, recently announced they're cutting back to three issues per week delivery for their subscribers. The remaining three days will be available in slimmed-down form at the newsstand, and subscribers will also get a Saturday edition “as a bonus” – I like that touch.

The limited delivery comes on the heels of recent business maneuvering strongly suggesting that a three-day-a-week publishing schedule may not be far off.

I condole with the dedicated workers at the O who've managed to survive all the rounds of downsizing they've already faced. But editorials like this help me realize that the loss is a double-edged thing:

To those who accuse the Republican Party of inflexibility on social issues such as abortion, its leaders can always point to their ability to reach around and slap a "kick me" sign on their own backs. That will be the effect of Tuesday's vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on legislation that would bar most abortions after 20 weeks.

The bill passed the lower chamber easily, enjoying the support of six Democrats and all but six Republicans. But that's where its legislative journey, at least, will end. It's expected to go nowhere in the Senate, and the outcome would be the same if it did. The president would veto it.

The ban's symbolic and political journey will continue, however, both in ways House Republicans intend (many of their constituents support the proposal, even if it's hopeless) and ways they surely do not. Those who stand to gain politically by potshotting Republicans, absurdly, as misogynists engaged in a "war on women" have now added another projectile to a pile that includes former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's notorious "legitimate rape" blunder.

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit: Rep. Akin's “blunder” was only a blunder in the Kinsleyan-gaffe sense: He came out publicly and said something foolish and uninformed that he fully believed – and still fully believes – to be true. He didn't “misspeak;” he didn't get “taken out of context.” He just holds some wildly-incorrect ideas about science and biology – ideas shared by many of his party caucus – and happened to mention them.

The “war on women” is not actually a war, of course, but only in the sense that the United States doesn't declare wars anymore except for marketing and branding purposes. Trust me on this: If the “war on drugs” had done even half as much damage to the use and trafficking of illegal drugs in America in the last forty years as the “war on women” has done to the rights of women in America to control their own body and health decisions during roughly the same time, there'd be a lot more former Justice and State Department officials with their very own Presidential Medal of Freedom.

And finally you gotta love this characterization: “Those who stand to gain politically by potshotting Republicans, absurdly, as misogynists engaged in a 'war on women.'” That's how the O's editorial board refers to the people who oppose the march to roll back women's rights in health care, in the economy, in the justice system, and so on. People who've actually noticed what the Republican party, both in Congress and in the states, have made no effort to hide. What they clearly and proudly and without significant dissent and at every opportunity put in their party platforms, promise to their base, and bring to a vote. It makes no sense to call Tuesday's anti-abortion vote in the House “symbolic.” They passed that bill because it's what they devoutly want. Maybe the Republicans knew that their abortion ban would not become the law of the land (or maybe not; their hold on reality can be about as rock-steady as Birnham Wood). But surely the O's editors understand how much they would like it to become law, and there's nothing remotely “absurd” – or caricaturish, to use another term from later in the editorial – to take them at their word on the subject.

The O's editors worry that the anti-choice extremists currently running the Republican party will harm the chances of "moderates" who decline to distance themselves from them  – which is sort of an odd interpretation of "moderate." On the other hand, if you're one of the ones calling the extremists on it  – in effect, pointing out what they make no secret of anyway – you're taking absurd political potshots for partisan advantage.

The caricature isn't the portrayal of the House Republicans as anti-choice extremists. It's the editors' own attempt to paint Republican Party, as it now stands, as a group of reasonable moderates (a Silent Majority?) who would sincerely like to do good, if only . . . .  Hell, I can't even finish that sentence without getting the giggles. You want absurd? There's your absurd.

If this is what we would be giving up if the Oregonian went to three days a week, I can feel some of the sting going away already.

The unforgiving minute: I'm going to develop a multi-passenger vehicle called The Drove.

And I'm going to be frickin' rich.

Who will pay cash on the nail for them, just to get away from the GOP? Well, for starters:

Women:

This fall, women turned out in droves to defeat the party of candidates like Richard Mourdock and Congressman Todd Akin, whose misogynist comments on rape were repulsive to most Americans.

l
Hispanics:

Mr. Obama’s victories in Colorado, Nevada and Virginia came in part because Hispanics turned out in droves and voted Democratic.

Gay rights supporters:

Since last month’s election I’ve been analyzing the voter shifts on Nov. 6 that carried gay-marriage advocates to victory in four states, after years of defeats. Yesterday the Washington Post “Outlook” section ran a piece in which I documented one of the most noteworthy shifts: Republican voters, especially in suburbs, crossed over in droves to break with their party’s official position.

Seriously: The Republicans should forget about banning abortions and start worrying about banning the production and sale of Droves, because the people who are driving those are kicking GOP ass.

Minute's up.

Quote of the day: Women and books

In the history of women, there is probably no matter, apart from contraception, more important than literacy.

- Joan Acocella, lobbing a grenade in the opening paragraphs of her  fascinating New Yorker review of Belinda Jack's The Woman Reader, on “the slow process by which women took up books and pens” -- the development not merely of literacy among women but reading. (New Yorker articles online are behind a pay wall; if you're not a subscriber, consult your local public library or physician's waiting room.)

For what it's worth, the cover date of the issue with Acocella's article is the day before 15-year-old Malala Yousufzai was shot in the face by a member of the Taliban in Pakistan for the crime of advocating education for girls.

Young Jane Eyre got off easy; they only locked her in a room.

The unforgiving minute: And a-one, and a-two, and . . .

Somewhere, at this moment, Dick Lugar must be shaking his head in amusement and dismay.

Poor Dick. He's so old and out of it he thought it was all about governing and leadership. Watching him try to go Teabag-to-Teabag against Mourdock last spring made me secretly thankful that Lawrence Welk died before he and his Champagne Music Makers had to try covering rap music.

Anyway, congratulations to Indiana, whose Senate candidate is currently leading the 2012 GOP Misogyny Open.

Minute's up.

Reading: The most delicious sci-fi plot twist since “'To Serve Man”

If you followed the RNC convention and platform-construction last week, you may find this funny as hell.

Or you may not.

The departure point of Sherri Tepper's "The Fresco,” a story that might be described as science-fiction with a healthy dose of satire, is that our space exploration has drawn the attention of other worlds who are organized to maintain peace. Through a human selected as their sole emmisary to our planet, the representatives of this organization of other worlds invite us to join them and share in their knowledge and development. (We can decline the offer, but the alternative isn't pretty, and it hinges on the fact that this organization isn't the only one Out There whose notice we've attracted.)

In order to make sure that Earth abides by the rules of this confederation, their representatives leave behind “monitors” called Inkliti, specialized life-forms designed to enforce peaceful behavior on our part.

There is one possible wrinkle in the plan, though, as one of the representatives explains in the following message to their chosen emmisary; but they're confident they've worked out an elegant solution:

The question of resources brings me to a delicate point. Because our need was immediate, we brought back with us the only Inkleozese monitors who were available at the time. Virtually all of them are in that state of parturition that will soon require a host animal. There are no quodm, geplis, nadervaks on Earth. The most suitable creatures will be male persons, as their hormones are more easily adjustable to the needs of the growing Inkliti.

Under usual circumstances, the Inkleozese would refuse to leave their planet at such a time. Only our elucidation of the pro-life feelings of many men in positions of power convinced them they could find hosts on Earth without offending the free will of its inhabitants. Obviously, the hosts will have to be persons who espouse the pure pro-life position which does not allow reproductive choice even in the case of rape. Not that these gentlemen would consider it a rape, but we all know what the media do with any events related to sexuality.

While the Inkleozese might be offended by the anti-woman bigotry underlying much pro-life dogma, we have not seen fit to discuss with them the psychological minutia of the situation. They would be outraged, or worse, if a host animal refused the implantation of an Inklit egg, but since implantation is always done with the host in a euphoric state, we know the gentlemen will not refuse. We have, therefore, selected hosts for the Inkleozese on the basis of their publicly stated receptivity to preborn life.

Among those chosen are your legislators who have repeatedly asserted an unequivocal antichoice position. We have also added to the list a number of TV and radio preachers and commentators who have been rigorously pro-life. Once the immediate need is taken care of, we will explain the matter as seems necessary. Everyone will be told that the hosts are pregnant with babies of an intelligent life form which it would be a grave ethical error to remove. Though the impregnation has or will be done without the hosts' individual permission, in a legal sense we may infer their position from the stand which they have taken upon the issue of rape. Each man on our list has gone record as refusing to allow choice to women who have been raped, pointing out that the infant is innocent and must therefore take precedence. The Inkleozese could not ask for a better statement of their own belief.

In any case, the implantations will only be a temporary inconvenience for the hosts. They will most likely survive the pregnancy and emergence experience without lasting harm, just as most of your women do. The hosts will have only a few months of discomfort and inconvenience, though of course their careers must be set aside for a time. Inasmuch as they have frequently decried the shallowness of women who attempted to avoid pregnancy for mere career convenience, however, we are assured of their understanding.

Sheri S. Tepper,

The Fresco (2002)

(Hat-tip to James the Elder, who sent me The Fresco shortly after it first came out.)

Quote of the day: No amount of snarky commentary could possibly make this come off any worse

Asked what kind of role abortion and social issues might play in the campaign, Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway complained, "Why do Democrats always talk to women from the waist down? Republicans are talking to women from the waist up."

Via the Oregonian's David Sarasohn.

Doonesbury: Too much for The Oregonian, Day 4

Well-intentioned online petitions notwithstanding, The Oregonian is unlikely to reverse its decision to pull this week's Doonesbury strips, satirizing the hostility of the state of Texas (and several other states) to the notion that women should have control of their own reproductive health care, as well as access to the same insurance coverage that men receive.

Of course, online petitions weren't likely to succeed in this case, anyway; the O has historically had a somewhat shaky relationship to All Things Internet.

Since Portland's only daily is now referring readers to that Internet thingy for their daily dose of Doonesbury anyway, p3 is proud to help them offload readership by providing the link to today's strip.

Yesterday we mentioned the trouble that strip author Garry Trudeau got into with a fanciful 1980 arc called “Reagan's Brain.” But more often he's gotten heat from newspapers editors and critics (when those aren't the same) for telling things that are, in fact, true. Case in point: Back in 1973, Walden University campus activist and WBBY radio host “Megaphone” Mark Slackmeyer drew the wrath of many Nixon fans with this now-legendary entry in his “Watergate Profile” series. (And, for the record, young Mark was right; the pipe-smoking felon in question went on to spend 19 months in prison for his Watergate-related crimes.)

And, in an interview, strip creator Garry Trudeau says frankly that dodging the topic would be ”comedy malpractice.”

Doonesbury: Too much for The Oregonian, Day 3

As most of its readers are aware by now, The Oregonian has bailed on Doonesbury this week, rather than run the strips satirizing Texas and the other Republican-controlled state legislatures who are introducing -- or have already passed -- bills designed simply to humiliate women seeking legal abortions.

Here's today's Doonesbury strip. (Remember: The Oregonian isn't sure you can handle it!)

As you probably also know, this isn't the first time that newspapers with conservative editorial boards have abruptly lost their interest in defending Trudeau's strips featuring unpopular (to them) viewpoints. For example, on October 27, 1980, the Indianapolis Star, then owned by Dan Quayle's in-laws, was among two dozen papers around the country that dropped a two-week Doonesbury strip in which reporter Roland Headly takes readers on an ABC Close-Up tour of “Reagan's Brain.”

And that was several years before St. Ronnie began presenting symptoms of Alzheimer's that no one in the loop acknowledged until after he left office.

Doonesbury: Too much for The Oregonian, Day 2

Here's today's too-dangerous-to-print Doonesbury strip satirizing the state-by-state war on the health care rights -- and the plain, simple dignity -- of women.


The Oregonian, as you may be aware, thought it was inappropriate to expose its readers to such . . . well, let's call a spade a spade here: to such honesty about the Republican party's war on women. So hard-copy subscribers will get, for example, Rich Lowry whining that the rights of women to adequate health care shouldn't be allowed to trump employers' right to enforce their arbitrary beliefs upon them, but they won't be getting Doonesbury exposing what a misogynistic sham this is.

Here's p3 friend Charles Pierce on  the confusion of utter wussiness with sound business sense that this move represents:

[T]he suggestion by the Oregonian that all that graphic language, and all those inappropriate images, are okay for their readers of experience online, but not on the sacred corpses of their dead trees, gives you some idea of why newspapers are in so much trouble these days.

All of this cowardice, of course, occurs in the context of plunging revenues and the terrible realization that nobody really knows What Comes Next, including the people who are supposed to be creating What Comes Next. Reporters are hamstrung by idiotic "ethics codes" that are really only means by which management can exercise control over the help while groping for the last golden parachutes on the shelf. Some of the bravest people I know work for daily newspapers, and very damn few of them work in management.

Once again, if you're looking for today's Doonesbury strip, don't look in The Oregonian; go here.

Doonesbury: Too much for The Oregonian, Day 1

Here's the first of this week's Doonesbury strips satirizing the proposed Virginia law to require women seeking abortions to undergo an invasive (and obviously punitive) ultrasound, which The Oregonian judged inappropriate to run. (And yet last week they were still running AP articles like this one; it's a subtle difference.)

Saturday morning tunes: Rush versus Rush

This isn't a post about Republicans using rock music for their campaign events without getting permission of the copyright holders -- although lord knows there are plenty of those incidents.

This is about one particular Republican using music he has the legal right to use -- rarity of rarities! -- and the artists who object because the Republican in question is, to quote one band, “a racist, misogynist, right wing clown.” (Love their use of the serial comma.)

Unlike, say, the Bush 1992 presidential campaign, or the Dole 1996 campaign, or the McCain/Palin 2008 campaign, when Rush Limbaugh's radio show uses copyrighted rock music as background, or bumpers between segments, they have the legal right to do so, since Clear Channel (through its subsidiary syndication network Premiere, which distributes Limbaugh's show) has already paid for the rights to use the music on its network.

The artists can't sue for copyright infringement, and they can't pull advertising (like around fifty of his sponsors, and counting). But that doesn't mean that the artists whose work can be heard along with some of Limbaugh's recent misogynistic rants are going to go down without a fight.

And so, without further ado, p3 proudly presents:

Artists: Rage Against the Machine [thanks, Ryan, for spotting the error!]
Music in question: Sleep Now in the Fire.
Quote:

Stop using our music on your racist, misogynist, right wing clown show.

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

Artist: Peter Gabriel
Music in question: Sledgehammer
Quote:

Peter was appalled to learn that his music was linked to Rush Limbaugh's extraordinary attack on Sandra Fluke. It is obvious from anyone that knows Peter's work that he would never approve such a use. He has asked his representatives to make sure his music is withdrawn and especially from these unfair aggressive and ignorant comments.

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

Sunday morning toons: Under the letter “S” in the conservative dictionary

snob n. Someone who wants to use post-high school education to pursue the American Dream.

slut n. Someone who won't let Rush Limbaugh watch her having sex on the internet.

sperm n. A person with full legal rights under the U.S. Constitution. [c.f. corporation] Antonym: adult woman.

Today's toons have been selected from the week's pages at Slate, Time, Mario Piperni, About.com, and Daryl Cagle:

p3 Picks of the Week: Mike Luckovich, Adam Zyglis, Nate Beeler, Bob Englehart, Bruce Plante, Clay Jones, Clay Jones, Jeff Danziger, Nick Anderson, Pat Bagley, and Monte Wolverton.

p3 Best of Show: Steve Sack.

p3 Best Adaptation from Another Medium Mike Luckovich.

p3 Animal Hero, First Class Medal: John Cole.

p3 World Toon Review: Hassan Bliebel (Lebanon), Rachel Gold (Austria), Cameron Cardow (Canada), and Michael Kountouris (Greece),


Ann Telnaes watches Romney going off the deep end.


Mark Fiore asks, How do we pick our leader?


Is this the leg that launched a thousand ships, and burned the topless towers of Ilium? Taiwan's Next Media Animation worries that Angelina Jolie's leg might become too powerful.


Ah, sweet, sweet irony: Two months ago, we shared the news that one of the characters in Archie was going to marry his (also male) honey now that DADT had been revoked. Apparently even the happiness of completely fictional comic book characters is too much for the god-botherers at the American Family Association to endure if they haven't approved it first, so the AFA, through one of its Potemkin front groups, the wildly over-ennumerated One Million Moms, demanded that Toys 'Я' Us remove the offending issue from their store shelves or face what we might call a boy-meets-boycott. And, in a lovely demonstration of the importance of being careful what you wish for, One Million [or fewer] Moms got what they wanted:

Despite attempts by a conservative American mothers' group to have it pulled from sale, the new Archie comic, which features a gay marriage, has just sold out. [...]

The strong sales follow a call from the American Family Association's website One Million Moms for Toys R Us to stop selling the new Archie issue. The conservative Christian group is concerned that "children are now being exposed to same-sex marriage in a toy store". "Please remove all the same-sex 'Just Married – Archie' comic books immediately from your shelves. My decision to shop in your stores depends on it," they have written to the retailer.

Problem solved.


Tom Tomorrow discovers the one thing that can make the culture warriors even crazier. And the worst thing is that, until now, they didn't even think it existed.


Keith Knight pursues other, deeper sources of wisdom.


Tom the Dancing Bug predicts Mitt Romney will take the only logical course left to him, followed by a masterful parry from Obama.


Red Meat's Ted Johnson experiences the horror when health plans fail! Notice to the public: No one will be seated during the terrifying tiny-comb scene!


I take a seven-and-a-half! In lieu of a classic animation today, here are June Foray and Bill Scott, the voices, respectively, of Rocket J. Squirrel and Natasha Fatale, and Bullwinkle J. Moose, Mr. Peabody, and Dudley Do-Right. June Foray has done a lot of voice work, including for Warner Bros., but I think Scott limited himself to Jay Ward productions. (I haven't been able to settle it for certain one way or the other, but I suspect that Scott also did voice work in the early TV ads for Quisp, Quake, and Cap'n Crunch, all breakfast cereal icons animated by Jay Ward's company.)

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

(Hat-tip to John A. at AmericaBlog, although he's mistaken about Boris Badenov, who was voiced not by Bill Scott but by the omnipresent Paul Frees.)


The p3 Big Oregon Toon Block:

Jack Ohman watches in shock as the latest craze sweeps the nation's capital.

Every wonder what it might be like in Mormon Heaven? Matt Bors asks someone who apparently now knows.

Jesse Springer, after seeing the Oregon Supreme Court sanction the carrying of concealed weapons (with a permit) on Oregon college campus and the legislature considering a bill that would allow schools to deny that right, wonders if this is a ray of light:

(By the way, Jesse: Can't help noticing that the NRA woman doesn't look terribly stereotypical -- in fact, making the character a woman in typical office-wear (plus the hat)  runs a little against stereotype. But the sandaled-and-ponytailed anti-gun guy looks like someone phoned down to central casting and just asked for an "ex-hippie." That's all you got?) 


Test your toon-captioning skills at The New Yorker's weekly caption-the-cartoon contest. (Rules here.)

The unforgiving minute: A synoptic history of the separation of church and state

A synoptic history of the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state (updated for 2012*):


James Madison, 1791: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Thomas Jefferson, 1802: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment guarantees Americans a wall of separation between church and state.

John F. Kennedy, 1960: The separation of church and state is absolute. My church will not dictate my policy decisions.

Mitt Romney, 2008: The separation of church and state is relative. My church will dictate my policy decisions, but only to the extent that I will discriminate against the same people Christian conservatives would already be discriminating against anyway.

Rep. Bart Stupack, 2009: The separation of church and state is a fairy tale. My church will show up at the Capitol steps in a limo to dictate policy.

Rick Santorum, 2012: The separation of church and state is an abomination. "Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech [by JFK to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960], and I almost threw up."


Minute's up.

*Originally published in shorter form in 2009, when I thought the process had probably already reached its lowest point. Now it appears I may have stand ready for further revisions from time to time, as the exigencies of Republican electoral politics require it.

Quote of the day: The rigorous logic of anti-choice enthusiasts

Here's a first-form syllogism offered up by a right-wing blogger to demonstrate why liberal opposition to attacks on women's reproductive freedom is, by definition, unjust:

It is always possible that a liberal will have a just cause to hate something, but if it is a just cause, then a conservative will hate it, too.

Since conservatives don't hate limiting women's reproductive health choices -- in fact, they loves it a whole lot -- this is incontrovertible proof that liberal opposition to such limits is not a just cause.

Quod, as they say, Erat Demonstrandum.

Yeah, and how did the that Civil Rights Act thing work out for you guys?

The quote is via Roy Edroso at , who had the mental toughness to track down representative instances of right-wing bloggers' thoughts on the subject from the last couple of weeks. (Better you than me, sir.) No way I was ever going to link to the original source.

Sunday morning toons: It's 2012 and we're debating contraception, not jobs

Today's toons have been selected by an all-male panel of self-proclaimed experts who have never seen a political cartoon even once in their lives, but firmly believe they know why it's God's will that you should never ever see one yourself, from the week's pages at Slate, Time, Mario Piperni, About.com, and Daryl Cagle:

p3 Picks of the Week: Mike Luckovich, M. Wuerker, Clay Bennett, Joel Pett, Bill Day, Steve Sack, Bruce Plante, Randy Bish, Gary Varvel, David Fitzsimmons, Tom Toles, Mike Keefe, and Monte Wolverton.

p3 Best of Show: Jim Morin.

p3 Best Adaptation from Another Medium: Mike Luckovich.

p3 World Toon Review: KAL (England), Cam Cardow (Canada), Martin Sutovec (Slovakia), and Patrick Chappatte (Switzerland).


Bastards. Last August I shared the story of Syrian political cartoonist and caricaturist Ali Ferzat, who was beaten -- specifically including his hands -- for daring to raise pointed questions about the regime of Bashar Al-Assad. Ferzat is an active force on the internet, including Facebook. I recommend that you follow him. And meanwhile, here's a translated statement made during his recovery from the state-sponsored beating. It's not pretty, so use your judgment.


Ann Telnaes asks: Should Lincoln have given his Anti-Contraception Proclamation in 1863? There are those who say that would *really* have freed the slaves . . . ?


From a parallel universe, light-years away, Mark Fiore brings us news: that's a pretty messed-up theology.


Taiwan's Next Media Animation tells the story of Rick Santorum's battle to save America, as only NMA can.


Tom Tomorrow brings you Sex Talk with Rick Santorum. You may now go take a shower and burn your clothes.


The K Chronicles looks at influences, and breathes a sigh of relief.


Tom the Dancing Bug gets me where I fricking live: Super Hero Fantasies for the Middle-Aged.


Red Meat's Ted Johnson faces the difficult question: Can't you just wear a utility belt or some such thing like all the others?


The Comic Curmudgeon shares one of his darkest fears. Oh, and: ALE ST SW HO.


You can work it out from there: Lefty Cartoons brings you the story of a stalwart Tea Partier who takes nothing from the government.


Comic Riffs asks the question: Hey, buddy, can you spare $107K for some original Bill Watterson water colors?


The White Seal is the third Rudyard Kipling story that Warner Brothers golden animator Chuck Jones produced in the 1970's. (The others are Rikki-Tikki-Tavi and Mowgli's Brothers.) Their very un-Disneyness is enough to recommend them, apart from Jones's legendary talent at visualizing and story-telling.

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

The p3 Big Oregon Toon Block:

Jack Ohman is glad the state GOP legislators only come in to clean up a couple times a week. (Bonus: JO gets mail. NSFW. JO's guess is that this is the toon that probably moved his correspondent to write.)

Matt Bors presents Rick Santorum: The Good News and the Bad News.

Jesse Springer asks: Where will the timber-dependent counties turn for support when timber harvests and federal timber money begin to fade out?

Test your toon-captioning chops at The New Yorker's weekly caption-the-cartoon contest. (Rules here.)

Don't kid yourself for a moment

(Updated twice below.)

Jeffrey Goldberg's piece at The Atlantic's website, with more background on the machinations by anti-choice top brass at Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut off the organization's support for Planned Parenthood's breast exam services, has already been picked up around the web.

It includes the following quote from a former senior communications adviser for SGK. Goldberg presents it without comment, and I haven't seen any of the online commenters who've recirculated the story pay it any notice.

But I find it very surprising.

The Komen board of directors are very politically savvy folks, and I think over time they thought if they gave in to the very aggressive propaganda machine of the anti-abortion groups, that the issue would go away.

If the first half of this statement is true, the second can't be.

It doesn't speak terribly well for the members of the SGK board, if this has to be pointed out to them, but “politically savvy groups” (on either side of the issue) know perfectly well that “the very aggressive propaganda machine of the anti-abortion groups” is simply not in the business of “going away.”

That is not, as they say, how they roll. They do not grasp the concept of "Even-Steven."

The former communications adviser added, in a stunning bit of understatement, "It seemed very short-sighted to me."

Indeed, available evidence now points to the cut-off of support Planned Parenthood breast cancer screening as something that has been in the works for months by anti-abortion forces both within and without SGK, as something that was going to be accomplished by hook or by crook. In fact, in all likelihood, they're ramping up the same kind of attack on stem-cell research funding.^*

That's why the anti-abortion groups have succeeded to the extent that they have. The latest concession by their enemies is never enough. It only sets the groundwork for the next attack.

And whatever short-term price they may pay for their tactics -- I'm thinking of the almost-inevitable plunge in SGK's donor support and reputation -- you can rest assured it won't be enough to make them suddenly slap their foreheads and ask, "Wait -- could we have gone too far this time?"

Trust me. They're not going away. These people are the very opposite of "short-sighted."


^*Update #1: About 90 minutes after this post went up, here's the headline at DailyKos: "New Komen Foundation policy also refuses funding for embryonic stem cell research". Well. That didn't take long, did it?

Update #2: I'm not sure from whose point of view Jeffrey Goldberg writes, in the first sentence of his article, when he describes this controversy as "entirely avoidable, and deeply regrettable." From the point of view of anti-abortion activists within and without SGK, it's not anything they wanted to avoid (indeed, they'd been looking for the right opportunity to spring the trap for months). Nor is it something they now view with anything much resembling regret (except in the narrow sense that it will mean a heavy cost in money and credibility to an organization they evidently viewed with the deepest cynicism already).