That’s the title of a post over at Gawker responding, in its way, to my earlier thoughts on the Komen backlash. (For the uninitiated, Gawker’s imperative role on the Internet is that of the mother bird, partially digesting the work of others with the enzymes of bored irony and the gastric juices of sarcasm, and regurgitating stub articles fit for the consumption of the shrieking, featherless hatchlings that comprise my doomed generation.)
But the ‘conservatives think free speech only applies to money’ canard won’t cut it here. I never say, or imply, that anything PP or its allies have done is illegal or should be. Rather I hold with Buckley, who liked to note that not everything legal is reputable, and my language was normative, not juridical. The words I used were “creepy” and “despicable.” In case it was unclear why I think those words apply, let me be more explicit.
1) the Komen backlash lacked any sense of proportion. Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar a year industry. Komen has an operating budget in the neighborhood of $90 million. The amount of grants issued by the latter to the former totaled less than $700,000. Planned Parenthood successfully fundraised in excess of that amount within 24 hours on the argument that Komen was hurting women’s health, a scurrilous argument that — combined with Komen’s botching of the PR operation — has undoubtedly hurt women’s health.
2) The anti-Komen backlash operated under the assumption that PP was somehow entitled to the Komen grants. A healthier, more proportionate response might have been for PP to thank Komen for its years of support and urge donors to make up the difference. What happened instead is — functionally if not intentionally — hard to distinguish from a shakedown. I can’t see how it is in any charity’s long-term interest to be seen as publicly cajoling donors who have the audacity to stop writing checks.
3) Some of the methods employed by PP supporters were downright filthy. Hacking the Komen web site with a smear about running over poor women on the way to the bank? Maliciously editing Komen’s Wikipedia page with similar lies? United States senators calling on Komen to reverse its decision on the floors of Congress? I don’t know if that’s legitimate free speech, but I know its despicable.
The 'gawker' gaggle of websites (io9, jezebel, etc.) are populated by foul-mouthed, ignorant people who are either far leftists or parrot the phrases of the far left so as to be part of the 'in crowd.' Those sites contain no value.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHacking into a website is quite illegal.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, no sane, non-political organization should ever give to PP again, as they can then never stop giving.
Which is a wonderful, wonderful thing.
PP = Roach Motel
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlways gratifying to see another member of my generation call the sensationalist content mills of Gawker and its affiliate what they are.
I used to read Jezebel's abortion coverage voraciously, because I found that the columnists' sense of self-righteousness was both planetary in scale and inversely proportional to their grasp of the facts. This made me hopeful, because it meant the abortion movement was in its death throes. Eventually, however, I discovered that most pro-choicers -- even online! -- are actually considerably more intelligent *and* more modest than the raving comment mobs in Gawkerland.
Don't take it too seriously. You can't do anything to help its readership, which enjoys its ignorance, and it doesn't reflect poorly on you at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, my comments so far have been held up in moderation, but I'll try one more time.
You're one of my favorite conservative writers, but this post makes unconvincing arguments. You think the response of people who support Planned Parenthood was out of proportion. I think a lot of what I read on the The Corner is out of proportion to the actual harms caused. Who cares? If someone is right, they're right. If they're wrong, they're wrong. No one made you, or me, the arbiter or proportionality. Second, assume that supporters of PP felt entitled to the money. Some people probably did. I didn't notice much of that. Other people felt that a previously non-partisan organization was singling out one organization and then lying about it, and this made them upset because they think PP does valuable work. Neither you nor I know if most people felt entitled to the money, and it doesn't even matter if they did. Of course PP isn't entitled to the money. The issue is whether it's a good idea for Komen to give any funding to PP; unfortunately, they weren't really willing to make that argument in an honest, forthright way.
As for hacking a website, that's dumb and (probably) illegal. I'm not really shocked that senators are grandstanding on the floor of Congress. That's what they do, and depending on the issue that's what a lot of people want them to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSecond, assume that supporters of PP felt entitled to the money. Some people probably did. I didn't notice much of that.
If there wasn't a strong sense of entitlement, they wouldn't have gone ape-$#!%.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, I can't prove that you're wrong, obviously, and I won't keep trying if you're determined to feel the way you do. However, more so than being entitled, I think people thought that Komen's decision would negatively affect women's health and that there were better options for their charity support and dollars. This is a fun game though: you smear people as "entitled" and I praise them as "concerned" for womens' health.
The only reason I care about this issue is that I like the idea of umbrella charities that my friends and I with different political affiliations can all get together and support when it's time for a charity run/walk. In this case, it was people on the Right that tried to impose its political/moral beliefs on the organization and then people on the Left responded. (In other cases, I'm sure it's the other way around.) As this episode demonstrates, that strategy can have unpredictable consequences for both the activists and the organizations that attempt to placate them. My take-away is that the people in charge of Komens don't really have a core conviction on this subject. If they did, they could say "this is bad for dealing with breast cancer" or "this is good..." and then stick by it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, how dare Komen not give money to Planned Parenthood?
Komen OWES PP that money.
Never mind whether it serves Komen's purpose or works toward Komen's goals, Never mind if it's the best use of those resources. Never mind whether PP actually needs the money, or uses it in the way Komen wants their money used. Komen wrote a check once, now they OWE it to PP to keep writing that check for EVAH.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBottomline here is that (a) no good deed goes unpunished and (b) we have to read the label on any foundation or charity before we write the check.
Just as we've learned to do with food labels and just as we've been forced to do with lawyer-written disclaimers about evil side effects on drug commercials, there is no way in this day and age, with both the preponderance of interconnected political alliances that has infested the charitable world and the easy availability in every home of the internet to research the "who's behind this?' info necessary, that we can just see a seemingly heartfelt plea for help and then write a check. We just can't.
That's a darned shame for impulsive generosity's sake, but it is a requirement for avoidance-of-even-unconscious-hypocrisy's sake. People who, like the Komen folks seem to have done, give in to bullying blackmail protection rackets like Planned Parenthood do not deserve our support because even with their otherwise altruistic motives, they lack the moral fiber and stiff spine to actually do good with our money on a consistent and resolute basis AND because they have just become the bad guys' best commercial for why others should, likewise, knuckle under.
What should have been High Noon's sheriff standing up to the bad guys while others ran and hid has become the guy with the star (or in this case, pink ribbon) on his chest bugging out first while putting up a sign that says "Last one out of Dodge, turn out the lights." Chaos is next, PP-style.
All the more reason to elect Conservatives who'll de-fund them once and for all in the next congress and a Republican president who'll sign the bill. At least Capone and his ilk paid govt. bribes instead of taking them FROM govt. The fact that this era of "Chicago Style" politics makes one nostalgic for the prior incarnation speaks for itself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm glad you're pointing out number 2--a point which seems to elude many of my own liberal friends. They kept declaring that Komen "denied" and "deprived" PP of funds. Last time I checked, Komen had no legal obligation to give PP anything. But such is the nature of an entitlement mentality...
How dare Komen have a right to choose! Oh, wait...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The anti-Komen backlash operated under the assumption that PP was somehow entitled to the Komen grants."
Bingo. I've never heard of such backlash against an organization for ceasing to fund a much larger, more powerful agency until now. But, Komen has folded and garners no sympathy from me for all of the negativity spewed against it by the seething-leftists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTypical left-wing attitude: if you think something is bad, you must want to outlaw it. After all, that's the way they themselves operate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe parts compose the whole. The whole comprises the parts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrue enough. And the needs of the many ... outweigh the needs of the few.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse...or the one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSlander?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUmm, you're the only one who raised the issue of legality. The Gawker piece used the word "OK" and, at least in my language, "despicable"="not OK". Your reasoning in this piece is even weaker than last time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother great post in a collection of fine ones today by the author. Gawker and sites like it levy accusations and purport to know the private intentions of those not with the program in lieu of making any kind of argument. Just this week their EIC took to the pages of their sports gossip site (of which he once was in charge of) to level harsh accusations against a sports executive based on a witness that was later arrested for harrasment of that executive. This EIC took it in stride, contending in a righteous tone that it only made him more right. Garbage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe second sentence of this article is probably the best take-down I've read all year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think you and I agree on much, Mr Foster, but I just wanted to tell you that this:
"(For the uninitiated, Gawker’s imperative role on the Internet is that of the mother bird, partially digesting the work of others with the enzymes of bored irony and the gastric juices of sarcasm, and regurgitating stub articles fit for the consumption of the shrieking, featherless hatchlings that comprise my doomed generation.)"
is pure gold - "shrieking, featherless hatchlings" is particularly good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhy does Komen support the much larger organization, PP, instead of vice-versa? BTW, I'll be giving nothing to either in the future.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse