NOM... Utterly un-nommable

The "National Organization for Marriage" or NOM is coming to a city near me! Actually, to my city.

They are rallying to promote marriage between a man and a woman, and they are "bring[ing] their summer tour to Minnesota and Wisconsin this week... The group plans to stop in 23 cities in 19 states before wrapping up with a rally in Washington on Aug. 15"

I bet they have great tee shirts.

Conservative. Nothing too fancy. You know, the kind of thing you can safely wear to any hate-based event you may be attending this season.

These kinds of organizations make me ill. While clearly not a waste of brain cells, they are a waste of time and resources. I am thinking that straight marriage doesn't need any promotion, though with divorced people making up 10.7 percent of the population over 15, it might need some counseling.

Why can't these people redirect their energies into, oh, I don't know, working against economic inequality, fostering unwanted pets, or hosing off oily pelicans? Probably because that wouldn't get as much press. Real, difficult problems don't make headlines, and it's hard to work yourself up into a good, frothy, fear-filled lather over a homeless veteran.

Dear Target,

What's $2183.70 to a big company like you, beloved by millions of shoppers throughout the land, with sales of $63.4 billion during 2009? Not much, but it's what my little family of three spent at your stores in 2009 and 2010, up to now. I know you don't need me anymore. After all, your 2009 results "reflect the strongest retail segment profit in [your] history".

It's been grand, or, dare I say "Super", but I think it's time we see other people. You see, we don't agree about a few fundamental things, and it's standing in the way of this relationship going any further.

You think it's OK to deny women the right to choose their reproductive and sexual destiny, even as you partner with the Minnesota League of Women Voters.

You think it's just dandy to keep certain people from marrying the ones they love, even though you say you are trying to "foster an inclusive culture."

You believe it's a good idea to fund private schools at the expense of public schools, and furthermore, that the federal government should have no say in public education, even as you work to improve school libraries.

You think it should be harder for Americans to vote, even as you advocate voter education, and you believe Arizona's new immigration law is a good idea, even though you say "diversity is a core value throughout every area of [your] company."

You are proud of your NRA endorsement, even as you work with police officers "as trusted partners... to strengthen public safety."

You don't believe in global warming, even though though you say you "know what's good for the environment is good for everyone."

You don't believe in evolution, even though you "play an active role in supporting education."

Or, at least, that's what you are saying to me when you give $150,000 to an organization that is supporting Tom Emmer in the race for Minnesota governor. The above are deeply contradictory statements, and I can't reconcile the politician's beliefs with your company's stated goals, activities, and policies.

Clearly, these are things we can't overcome, "dealbreakers", I think they call them, so I'll be taking my money elsewhere from now on.

I know what you'll say. You'll say that you are non-partisan, you are just looking out for number one, and you will support anyone who you think supports you. You will say that you have given $80,000 to Democrats and $103,500 to Republicans in 2010, so it's pretty much equal.

You say you want to support Minnesotans, and that you love being here. You say you do a lot of good for the country in communities & schools.

But you never loved me. You never cared. And without me and countless other lefties, liberals, and progressives who support you, you are nothing. You can go ahead and support candidates who you say support business, but when those candidates are supporting business over supporting people, those people have less disposable income to spend in your stores.

When those candidates have beliefs that fly in the face of human rights, science, facts, and the common good, I have to draw the line.

Your 2007 Marketing Plan says that 93% of your shoppers are women, their median age is 41, their median household income is $63 thousand, 45% have children at home, and 48% have completed college. In that plan, it was advised that you branch out and find new markets, so I release you. May you be happy in the life that you have chosen.

I can get my tee shirts and baby bubble bath elsewhere.

Love,

kitty

p.s. Best Buy, you can be expecting a similar notice.

Note: Target CEO tries to explain. Oh, ok, then...

Open Secrets: Target Corp PAC expenditures
Open Secrets: Target Corp PAC Summary
Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics
American Public Media PAC*Men
Target: Our Company

Accidental, you say?

As I have mentioned in the past, Minnesota has a grand tradition of thoughtful and effective politicians.

Our current governor and our former senator are not two of them.

Mr. Pawlenty can't let it go. Al Franken was declared the winner, and he's our senator. From all reports, I think he's doing a great job, though I already expected a good performance. He's a smart individual and a good thinker, like a lot of writers.

The thing that really gets me about the above screen grab is not Mr. Pawlenty's grasping at straws, it's Mr. Coleman's comment about Mr. Franken being an "accidental senator."

Excuse me, Mr. Coleman. Have you forgotten that your opponent, one of the most thoughtful politicians in my lifetime thus far, died in a plane crash just ten days before the election? That's about as accidental as it gets.

ARRA

In my zip code, there are 27 grants, loans, and contracts totaling $11,200,898 that have come from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). They have gone to small businesses, really small businesses, neighborhood organizations, nonprofits, and advocacy groups. I just think that's pretty cool.

Oil, 2

daddywhumpus is mad, like a lot of people. Mad about the environmental and economic devastation in the Gulf caused by the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Mad about what seems to be an entirely bungled effort at stopping and containing the spill. Mad about the political response. Mad about what appears to be an example of gross corporate negligence on the part of British Petroleum. He, like many others, wants BP to be fined out of existence by the US government.

I agree with the sentiments, and the public has a right to be angry. BP has made this mess, and they are responsible for it. It's going to cost the global economy/US economy on many levels, and it's hard to assess what the long-term effects will be. It's frustrating that a corporation has to be strong-armed into taking responsibility, and it's even more frustrating for certain politicians and political movements to be barking at the federal government and not the corporation, when they espouse "personal responsibility" in other things--when it suits them.

If I made this kid of mess, you can be damn sure I would be expected to clean it up. You could also assume that the clean-up might break me financially, and I might then have to fall back on the government for help. It depends on my available resources. British Petroleum recorded profits in FY09 of 16 billion, 759 million, according to their annual report, and 21b 666m/21b 169m in the preceding two years. 20 billion in an escrow account is, in this sense, hardly a "shakedown" or a "fleecing" as Reps. Barton and Bachmann called it yesterday.

BP needs to pay for clean-up and fall out, and, of course, in the end, those expenses will be passed on to the consumer, if at all possible. 20 billion is not just absorbed by for-profit corporations. They might tighten their belt elsewhere in their ledgers, but, unlike private citizens, who usually have to find extra funds by cutting expenses or getting second jobs, corporations have the option to charge their customers more in order to raise revenue.

But remember, your local BP gas station owners didn't cause this spill, either. Boycotting them won't help your local economy.

Oil

Roger Ebert doesn't need little ol' me to link to his blog, but just in case you don't already go there once in a while, this is a good one. It brings to the surface some of the things that have been troubling me about the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and subsequent spill. Some of the things. He scratches at the political surface of the issue. I have much more thinking to do about the political turmoil of the situation, and this blog has helped me on my way.

If you go there, and read it, come back here and comment. I am interested in what critically-thinking individuals have to say. By that, I mean, not a comment argument on Facebook, which thrown ridiculous rhetoric around like confetti at a prom.

Vigil?

OK, I don't get it. I admit it. Various groups around the country are holding vigils... vigils for the oil spill and those affected by it. I think it's odd. Time, money, and organizational skills have gone into a visibility campaign that, at best, will probably be simply cloying and be looked at as a bunch of lefty tree huggers drumming up political publicity.

Wouldn't those resources be better spent looking at causes and advocating fixes, so that this has less of a chance of happening again? Or actual fundraisers for the individuals who are suffering because of it? Or donations to animal rescue organizations?

Candlelight vigils at this point seem rather trite.