As I've mentioned many times previously, I do not categorize people into "good" and "evil" according to their politics. Although I am some combination of libertarian/fiscal conservative/social liberal - I have friends of all dissenting stripes. Yes, it is possible to view the world differently from yours truly, and still be a special and wonderful person.
Still, that there are some out there who are so obsessed with certain political issues they become deranged, seems impossible to deny. I present you with this as current evidence.
Blogger Jane Hamsher, a movie producer ("Natural Born Killers") and political activist, went after Mrs. Lieberman as Sen. Lieberman was refusing to vote for a health-care reform bill that included expanding Medicare to people as young as 55. Hamsher claimed that because Mrs. Lieberman was a lobbyist and had worked for the pharmaceutical industry, she should be fired from her position as global ambassador for the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer charity.
Hamsher says that when people run for the cure, or donate to Komen, they don't expect their money to go to someone who helps funnel funds to pharmaceutical companies that are also fighting health-care reform.
If "Huh?" is trying to escape your lips, don't fight it. Meanwhile, let's pause for a few facts, easily accessible thanks to that techno-geezer, Alexander Graham Bell:
Hadassah Lieberman is not and has never been a lobbyist. She did work for some pharmaceutical companies -- Hoffman-La Roche in New York in the 1970s before she married Lieberman, and Pfizer, also in New York, from 1982 to 1985. Later, from 1993 to 1997, she worked for Apco, a global public relations firm that represents corporations, including several drug companies.
More facts: Mrs. Lieberman is not paid in her role as global ambassador for Komen, though she does get a check for consulting work she performs under a separate agreement. According to Komen spokeswoman Pamela Stevens, Komen has never funneled money to pharmaceutical companies. Susan G. Komen grants totaling $450 million have gone to research institutions in the United States and abroad. A separate $900 million has gone to programs in communities worldwide for education, screening and treatment. An additional $50 million will go to research in the coming year.
So, why again should Hadassah Lieberman be fired?
Because Jane Hamsher says so.
As I understand it, Hamsher's issue with Lieberman's role with Komen relates to the work Lieberman does outside of her involvement with Komen. So not a funneling of Komen's funds, but a conflict of interest based on other business she's involved with. Perhaps still a reach, but I think it's closer than the snippet illustrates.
Posted by: Ed Kohler | Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 05:39 PM