Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Susan G. Komen

ElkiElki hegemonglobalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
edited February 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
You've probably heard the story by now.

Susan G. Komen Foundation -responsible for pink ribbons, funder for cancer screening/research- has decided it will no longer be providing Planned Parenthood with $680,000 in grants because of a brand new rule that it adopted. The rule prohibits funding for organizations under government investigation, and the only casualty of this rule is PP. SGK claimed that politics had nothing to do with its decision, and the internet promptly called bullshit.

Now it's a day and many hours later and the result seems to be that SGK has, overnight, lost its image as a non-partisan/political organization, PP has raised about $900,000, and SGK is also claiming a funding spike but without providing any real numbers.

I don't doubt SGK's claims, but the funding is probably not equivalent. PP provides health services to women, and the funding spike they're getting is almost entirely from people who believe strongly in funding women's health. SGK is getting a pro-life funding spike, but they're a cancer cure/prevention organization. And when you're a cancer organization that's getting funding because of a perceived stance against abortion/contraception, then you've fucked somewhere along the way.

Currently my Facebook is awash on PP advertising, from my female friends. The kind the says "this is what planned parenthood does for me." The kind of advertising you can't pay for.









http://prospect.org/article/shattering-susan-g-komen-pinkwashing

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/top-susan-g-komen-official-resigned-over-planned-parenthood-cave-in/252405/

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/who-is-behind-susan-g-komens-split-from-planned-parenthood/252327/

«13456711

Posts

  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    This is the same organization that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars shutting down other charities for using "for the cure" in their name because of trademark infringement or some shit.

    They are a terrible organization and people should not be giving them money. Not surprised about this at all.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    I've been hearing for a while about how only a small fraction of your donations to Komen actually go toward research or treatments, most of it getting swallowed by "administrative costs."

    plus they rankled some feathers a while ago suing other cancer-fighting charities for using the phrase "for the cure."

    They really turned the whole pink ribbon thing into a business, seems like the whole "cure cancer" thing was secondary. This just sounds like one more bad business decision, glad they're getting slammed for it.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Haven't their justifications been kind of contradictory?

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    On a side note, Bloomberg is personally matching donations to PP up to $250,000 to help make up the shortfall.

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    And someone should tell their VP that, in the internet, you can't take your tweets/rt back.


    tweet.png


    You can delete, but the internet remembers.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote:
    I've been hearing for a while about how only a small fraction of your donations to Komen actually go toward research or treatments, most of it getting swallowed by "administrative costs."

    plus they rankled some feathers a while ago suing other cancer-fighting charities for using the phrase "for the cure."

    They really turned the whole pink ribbon thing into a business, seems like the whole "cure cancer" thing was secondary. This just sounds like one more bad business decision, glad they're getting slammed for it.

    Sounds shady.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Elki wrote:
    And someone should tell their VP that, in the internet, you can't take your tweets/rt back.


    tweet.png


    You can delete, but the internet remembers.

    What a surprise.

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Susan G. Komen is a terrible organization in general.

    It's a good cause. But a terrible organization.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    This is the same organization that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars shutting down other charities for using "for the cure" in their name because of trademark infringement or some shit.

    They are a terrible organization and people should not be giving them money. Not surprised about this at all.

    Don't forget, they also like to sue people over the color pink.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/komen-foundation-gave-75-million-grant-penn-state
    Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which recently announced that it is ending grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening because of a controversial investigation launched by an anti-abortion Republican congressman, currently funds cancer research at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center to the tune of $7.5 million. Like Planned Parenthood, Penn State is currently the subject of a federal government investigation, and like the Planned Parenthood grant, the Penn State grant appears to violate a new internal rule at Komen that bans grants to organizations that are under investigation by federal, state, or local governments. But so far, only the Planned Parenthood grants appear to have been cancelled.
    ...
    Totally has nothing to do with abortion.

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    After their fundraising with KFC pink buckets, I'm surprised anyone stilll takes them seriously.

    Sicarii on
    gotsig.jpg
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    SGK has been more interested in being a business than a charity for... a long time now.

    -edit-

    I also think SGK places too much stock in their default defense that no one can say bad things about them, because cancer. The criticism has grown and grown over the years. People are realizing in increasing numbers that you can be a bad cancer charity. There are much better cancer organizations.

    Regina Fong on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote:
    After their fundraising with KFC pink buckets, I'm surprised anyone stilll takes them seriously.

    America Diabetes Association is worse in that particular regard.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/health/25ada.html?pagewanted=all

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    SGK has been more interested in being a business than a charity for... a long time now.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure#Pinkwashing_in_cause_marketing

    Organizations such as Breast Cancer Action, an advocacy group, say that such promotions are often financially ineffective.[67] For instance, in 2005 Yoplait donated ten cents to Komen for each lid mailed in by consumers at a time when postage to mail a letter cost 37 cents.[67] Since the Save Lids to Save Lives campaign began in 1998, Yoplait has donated more than $25 million to Komen. In 2010 their annual maximum commitment was raised to $1.6 million.[68]

    I remember this. They left out the best part, though: The rules specified only one lid per envelope.

  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    The world of shitty charities must be even more anti-meritocratic than the world of shitty for-profits, judging by this display of total ineptitude. I don't know why I'm still surprised that they're obviously totally unprepared to deal with this completely foreseeable fallout, but I am.

    Brian Krakow on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    So few charities anymore are actually safe to give to. It's pretty sick stuff.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Couscous wrote:
    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/komen-foundation-gave-75-million-grant-penn-state
    Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which recently announced that it is ending grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening because of a controversial investigation launched by an anti-abortion Republican congressman, currently funds cancer research at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center to the tune of $7.5 million. Like Planned Parenthood, Penn State is currently the subject of a federal government investigation, and like the Planned Parenthood grant, the Penn State grant appears to violate a new internal rule at Komen that bans grants to organizations that are under investigation by federal, state, or local governments. But so far, only the Planned Parenthood grants appear to have been cancelled.
    ...
    Totally has nothing to do with abortion.
    Komen's founder, Nancy Brinker, is a former Bush administration official who has given almost $200,000 to Republican officials over the years, and Karen Handel, Komen's top lobbyist, is a pro-life Republican who was elected secretary of state in Georgia

    Wait... where did this $200,000 come from? Did she use money that was given to her as donations to pay her own salary so she could donate $200,000 to Bush?

    Also, this is reason #3749832 that libertarianism doesn't work. They keep talking about private charity, and a lot of the big name charities are really shitty because they focus on marketing rather than altruism.

    Could we add the phrase "...and other shitty charities" to the thread title?

    Schrodinger on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    Yeah she pays herself like a half million dollars a year.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote:
    So few charities anymore are actually safe to give to. It's pretty sick stuff.

    Yeah it's pretty depressing.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Yeah she pays herself like a half million dollars a year.

    Which is pretty cheap as far as income for the heads of major charities go. Then again, heads of major charities tend not to be this incompetent at public relations. This is probably a good reason why you pay big bucks to people who are experts at this shit to run the show.

    Couscous on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    There are good charities though! Even for cancer stuff!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jimmy_Fund

  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Incenjucar wrote:
    So few charities anymore are actually safe to give to. It's pretty sick stuff.

    http://givewell.org/

    I have to give them props. Their top charity focused on malaria netting in Africa and saved on average 1 life per $2000 sent to it, the most efficient of all charities in lives per dollar. Then they had the integrity to say that they had so much money funneled to them that they put a net in every village now where governments let them and they'd even set aside a nest egg for future years. So they stopped asking for donations for a while and suggested other charities you could donate to until they figured out efficient ways to spend extra cash. Fuckin' beautiful of them.
    Edit: I may be confusing their past and current top recommendations.

    zerg rush on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    So few charities anymore are actually safe to give to. It's pretty sick stuff.

    Yeah it's pretty depressing.

    It's why the only one I bother with is Child's Play.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Which is pretty cheap as far as income for the heads of major charities go. Then again, heads of major charities tend not to be this incompetent at public relations.

    It's still an absurd amount to pay yourself for running a charity.

    Harry Dresden on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Which is pretty cheap as far as income for the heads of major charities go. Then again, heads of major charities tend not to be this incompetent at public relations.

    It's still an absurb amount to pay yourself for running a charity.

    If they don't pay decent amount, they won't attract talent because a lot of this shit is a full time job.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I have also read they've actively lobbied against public financed breast cancer research because it would end them. Just an awful group.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Couscous wrote:
    Which is pretty cheap as far as income for the heads of major charities go. Then again, heads of major charities tend not to be this incompetent at public relations.

    It's still an absurb amount to pay yourself for running a charity.

    If they don't pay decent amount, they won't attract talent because a lot of this shit is a full time job.

    I disagree. You could pay them low 6 figures and still be good. I'd say 150-250k/yr plus expense account is super fucking reasonable enough to attract compassionate talent.

    This charity is paying its president twice what the President of the Goddamned USA makes.

  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I don't know why I'm still surprised that they're obviously totally unprepared to deal with this completely foreseeable fallout, but I am.

    That's how I feel about it.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote:
    Couscous wrote:
    Which is pretty cheap as far as income for the heads of major charities go. Then again, heads of major charities tend not to be this incompetent at public relations.

    It's still an absurb amount to pay yourself for running a charity.

    If they don't pay decent amount, they won't attract talent because a lot of this shit is a full time job.

    I disagree. You could pay them low 6 figures and still be good. I'd say 150-250k/yr plus expense account is super fucking reasonable enough to attract compassionate talent.

    This charity is paying its president twice what the President of the Goddamned USA makes.

    Sounds reasonable to me.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    100k a year for running a charity is acceptable. Maybe - a very strong conditional maybe - 200k. But holy shit, you don't embody the spirit of charity when you take such a high pay.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    Should probably also be noted--breast cancer is not nearly as big of a deal as a lot of other diseases and gets way more funding that almost anything else.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    large.jpeg
    That is a clever hack.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    Oh that actually happened, couscous? :^:

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote:
    I've been hearing for a while about how only a small fraction of your donations to Komen actually go toward research or treatments, most of it getting swallowed by "administrative costs."

    plus they rankled some feathers a while ago suing other cancer-fighting charities for using the phrase "for the cure."

    They really turned the whole pink ribbon thing into a business, seems like the whole "cure cancer" thing was secondary. This just sounds like one more bad business decision, glad they're getting slammed for it.

    Wikipedia puts administration at like 10%, which is reasonable. Advertising at another 10%, but it works.

    The real scam is the pinkwashing, where companies kick back laughably small portions of the money they make pimping pink shit for SGK. How much of that I put on SGK depends how pissed I am at the moment. Right now the answer is "quite a bit. "

  • yakulyakul Registered User regular
    Should probably also be noted--breast cancer is not nearly as big of a deal as a lot of other diseases and gets way more funding that almost anything else.

    Yea but breasts rule. After extensive research I only found like two HONRY PROSTATE videos

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    yakul wrote:
    Should probably also be noted--breast cancer is not nearly as big of a deal as a lot of other diseases and gets way more funding that almost anything else.

    Yea but breasts rule. After extensive research I only found like two HONRY PROSTATE videos

    Exactly.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    Elki wrote:
    I don't know why I'm still surprised that they're obviously totally unprepared to deal with this completely foreseeable fallout, but I am.

    That's how I feel about it.

    I'm betting the assumption was that any blowback would be softened by "but they will still give, because cancer"

    Personally? I'd love to see a Dem congresscritter open "investigations" into everyone on their grant list, just to point out that a congresscritter investigating something is not the same as the feds investigating something.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    kildy wrote:
    Elki wrote:
    I don't know why I'm still surprised that they're obviously totally unprepared to deal with this completely foreseeable fallout, but I am.

    That's how I feel about it.

    I'm betting the assumption was that any blowback would be softened by "but they will still give, because cancer"

    Personally? I'd love to see a Dem congresscritter open "investigations" into everyone on their grant list, just to point out that a congresscritter investigating something is not the same as the feds investigating something.

    :^:

«13456711
Sign In or Register to comment.