Planned Parenthood can't win

The Texan branch of Planned Parenthood recently gained notoriety in the press for denying a massive 500,000 dollar donation from "comedian" Tucker Max. Why would the fact that a private organization denied a source of funding get into the news? It does when the organization in question recently had it's portion of state medicare funding cut by the Texan State Legislature and the organization recently made a statement announcing that it was looking for alternative sources of investment so it would not have to reduce it's services in Texas. So then if Planned Parenthood is in need of finance and the state organization would have to enforce cutbacks if they don't find investment why did they refuse this massive donation?

Simple answer? Tucker Max is one of the most sexist, selfish individuals in the world at the moment and certainly a toxic source of funding for any organization let alone Planned Parenthood. Simply looking at the career and humour of Tucker can bring up multiple reasons why his money was denied, the guy has made a living and a fortune of an idiotic style of comedy called "fratire" which seems to me like an idiotic excuse for morons like Tucker to get drunk and behave like bigoted and sexist caveman audience, his jokes seem to centre around calling women second-rate citizens and sluts "who will doing anything for money". It's not surprising to learn that people have accused him multiple times of adding to the rape culture especially with jokes like "blind girls never see it coming

It is becoming increasingly difficult to see why anyone can criticize Planned Parenthood for denying the donation from Max Tucker especially when Tucker has attacked the organization in the past, using twitter to post offensive comments about Planned Parenthood a now infamous tweet about "slutty whores" and waiting rooms gaining attention before Tucker deleted it. In another offensive tweet he tweeted that it would be cooler if Planned Parenthood was just a giant staircase with someone pushing pregnant women down them, apparently like a giant "water park slide".

The infamous tweet.

Tucker's offensive attitude to women and feelings towards Planned Parenthood are not just the only reason for denying the donation. Tucker complained about his "excessive tax burden" to his publicist and wished to do something about it that would also give him press attention for his latest book, of course the Publicist suggested that Tucker donate a large sum of money to Planned Parenthood and in return they name on of the centres in his honour, something that would certainly give him a lot of press attention and be free advertising for his new book at the same time, so Planned Parenthood was perfectly within the right to deny this donation from an individual that has been offensive to women, the organization and only wishes to donate to lessen his tax burden.

I wonder what the reaction from the right-wing would of been if Planned Parenthood actually accepted the donation from Tucker Max, would they of congratulated the Texas branch of PP for making some headway on securing it's financial future? I don't think so. They would of attacked the organization for gaining it's source of finance from such an immoral source basically they would of used the entire argument for Planned Parenthood's refusal of the donation to attack them. It's part of the continued attempt by conservatives to destroy Planned Parenthood an organization that benefits millions of American's.

Let's hope that the democrats and progressives in and outside government actually actively defend Planned Parenthood and don't let it suffer the same fate as A.C.O.R.N.

Failure of Anarchy

I've come across quite a growing number of anarchists on the internet and i've always been left confused after conversing with them. According to the dictionary (www.dictionary.reference.com) anarchy is defined as a "state of society without government or law".  

Debating/Conversing with an anarchist is fairly simple especially over the internet. When encountering one a key tool in your arsenal is to ask them to provide an example of an anarchist society that has ever functioned on a regional or local level, of course I have been provided with numerous examples in fact today several people defending the principles of anarchy have given me around three examples of an apparent anarchist state but of course when delving into these examples you often find issues with their defence.


The Icelandic Commonwealth was handed to me as an example of an apparent anarchist state yet the very second this country was scrutinized the example was blown out of the water for being completely and utterly false. The Icelandic Commonwealth was divided into numerous communities called goðorð and whilst this may be similar to certain anarchists principles of a voluntary communities these communities could only be created by certain land owners or people that had gained their title ancestrally these Chieftains would them meet in the Althing (early national assembly) when a dispute rose between different communities or if someone wanted to appeal a decision made by a Chieftain, something that would be decided by the collective leadership. These examples of regional and state-wide leadership and even collective leadership turn the notion that the Icelandic Commonwealth was an anarchy or even close to once to be pure fantasy.


Examples aside the very idea of a functioning anarchist state is pure fantasy to me. Any region without basic laws and governance would collapse into a state of complete destitution, an example of the failure of this system is fairly easy to find and will provide you with a wealth of ammunition to use against any anarchist you stumble upon the internet or in real life.


Your communities drinking supply is being heavily polluted by several large industrial factories that have no qualms with dumping their highly toxic chemicals down stream, the result of the dumping is having an horrific impact on the health and economy of your anarchic community as current filtration techniques cannot filter the vast amount of chemicals in the water and local wildlife has either left the region entirely or completely been killed off by the toxic sludge, attempts to peacefully negotiate with the owners of the factory have completely failed and they posses enough weapons to make any attack against them completely fruitless and once that would most likely end up in the complete destruction of your community. What is the solution? Move into another area? What if the same problem is repeated across the state or even the entire country? Where will you be forced to move then? Could you even move such a large swathe of supplies across such a large distance without being victim to raiders and other criminal elements within the non-functioning society?


It's the problem that most anarchists face, in this situation their is no solution to the problem and the only winners are those with the financial and military clout to do as they wish whilst in a system with a functioning system of governance and regulation, a member of the town could make a simple complaint to the necessary regulatory authority, the Environmental Agency (in the UK) and the Environmental Protection Agency (in the US) etc etc.  


So now we see what a true anarchist system would be like, those with sufficient monetary and military capital would rule over those communities who lack the financial or military power to ensure their own quality of living (river pollution example). The entire idea reminds me of Feudalism when the powerful land-owners controlled the entire life of the less powerful (although more numerous) plebs and serfs.