First, a look at what went on at Susan G. Komen “For The Cure” (SGK from here on):
On January 31, SGK declared they weren’t going to fund Planned Parenthood “Because of a investigation by Republicans over whether they’re a criminal group (Translation: Since you cannot separate ‘Public Money’ from ‘Private Money,’ there’s no such thing as ‘private money’ and therefor Planned Parenthood breaks the law by their mere existence).” After a backlash (including the resignation of quite a few people from their leadership), they turned around and declared that they were amending their criteria “to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”
Yeah, right. I’ve always had deep doubts about this group ever since they stomped onto the scene in Chicago in the early 2000’s. My doubts were confirmed when it turned out that much of their activity was actually suing other groups using the catchphrase “for a/the cure.” So the seeming “departure” of defunding Planned Parenthood seems to me to be nothing out of the ordinary for this group – just a shift from economic neocon thought to social fundamentalist thought.
(indeed, they seem to me to be very much like Lance Armstrong’s “Live
Strong” charity, which is more a way to funnel extra money to himself then to actually help out people)
Second, The Cry Is Out For Christians To Boycott Starbucks!
That’s right, friends, because the state they’re based in is voting to allow Gays to get married, We Are Supposed To Buy Our Coffee From Dunkin Donuts. Never mind that the majority of practicing Christians live in areas that aren’t necessarily served by Starbucks (or if they are, it’s at a sizable distance), and never mind that few Christians actually have a daily coffee habit that involves the high prices from Starbucks (something that gays, with their higher income and very low likelihood of that income being eaten up by children they helped bring into the world, are more likely to develop) – they expect to bring Starbucks to their knees through a boycott.
Thing is, given that much of my growing period was as a Fundamentalist Christian (late seventies and early eighties – same fixation towards the end-times, same concern over the sinfulness of society, just the beginnings of some of the straying tendencies they would come to embrace later on) I can understand it well. The portion Romans 1 that the above link refers to talks about what happens when people turn away from God – they find other things to worship, then they seek out sexual license and come to practice sodomy (the engaging in sex without risking the woman’s becoming pregnant), then that lawlessness would come to inform their actions and whom they support. Add in the misrepresentation of their comment that “This is part of our core values.” (more on that below, and why it links to Komen) and it’s easy to see why “Thou Shalt Not Drink At Starbucks” would become a candidate for the 11th commandment.
Thing is, I don’t think this is getting play because of the Washington Gay Marriage Vote. After all, I didn’t see much of a drive to banish Apple from the home when California was in the throes of voting Proposition 8 into its constitution (and Apple opposed it). And I’ve yet to see a movement to boycott Nike or Microsoft. So there’s something else.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Now, Here Is The Link For All To See:
Health care. For poor people.
Everyone knows that Planned Parenthood does abortions, but there’s a lot of other services done for women’s health that don’t involve the prevention of babies – they also teach health habits to women and try to stop breast cancer. Furthermore, there’s few Planned Parenthood locations in places where the wealthy people live (and one assumes they can afford to do what’s needed to prevent unwanted babies from being born).
Never mind that the Komen foundation gives little of its money to Planned Parenthood, nor that Planned Parenthood receives little of its money from Komen; Komen’s actions seems to be aimed at a high-level attack, hoping to gain sympathetic actions from other nonprofits.”
The boycott against Starbucks SEEMS to be about Homosexuality. However, the quote here is telling:
Starbucks overlooked the health concerns for homosexuals. CDC reports that one in five homosexuals have HIV, with many unaware they are sick. The average homosexual dies at 42 years and has a higher depression rate, Cameron reports.
Interesting that they’re talking at length about health concerns.
Also interesting that (as the core value they were referring to in the quote) Starbucks is one of the few companies that goes around insuring its part-time workers. More interesting that it’s probably one of the few who do so willingly. (UPS does so as well, but they got Union Representation there. I miss the good health benefits, both on the floor and further up.) Many of the people working at Starbucks probably couldn’t find affordable health insurance elsewhere (Certainly not at Wal-Mart, whose way of helping out their workers consists of handing out Welfare Applications when asked I’m sure Target could care less about their floor workers…).
So what do I see with this? A veiled attack on the poor trying to get health insurance and/or help.
Whether they’re being the driving force (The Komen “For the Cure” “funding” issue) or being useful idiots for the Kochs and others who hide behind them (The Starbucks boycott issue), the Christians seem desperate to destroy any chance the poor may have at decent health care.
After all, there’s plenty of companies out there that could be boycotted if the Christians wanted, some of whom could be struck harder. After all, chances are they’re using a Microsoft computer to read about the boycott (since Apple is a Satanic Company…), Nike Shoes and many others who would be easier to strike at than Starbucks (since they’re more likely to brew a cup of Folgers than to pick up a cup at a Starbucks store.
But it’s not about homosexuals. After all, Microsoft runs with a cadre of employees and uses an army of temps to fill in the computer code, thereby insuring that most of their employees has no real lasting rights. And Nike…let’s just say they’re not so much an American company as a Chinese company that happens to be based in Washington State.
Again, the items linking the two are health care for the poor.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Granted, I don’t think the Christians explicitly want poor people to suffer and die an early, gruesome death. However, their thirst for “justice” and “righteousness” has led them to take the fight against those trying to do good for certain flaws.
This would seem to be most egregious with the Starbucks issue. We’re talking about a company that supplies health insurance to its employees at a massive cost (right now it’s the biggest item in its cost structure), tries to buy fair trade coffee (freakonomics needs to have its head screwed on straight on this issue) and in general tries its best to not be an evil company (doesn’t stop them, but some things can’t be avoided). However, add in a stand that probably comes in part with being established in Washington State (Komen’s problem was that it had gone national, had they done their anti-Planned Parenthood stand as a Texas company they’d probably have become the queens of Texas) and suddenly you have the most evil corporation in the world.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. It’s not about faggots, it’s about health care to the poor. The Christians are being useful idiots in this case. Nothing more, nothing less.