The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Susan G. Komen
Elki
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4oOh6JhayA
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/
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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4oOh6JhayAhttp://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/
Elki on
0
Posts
They are a terrible organization and people should not be giving them money. Not surprised about this at all.
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.
You can delete, but the internet remembers.
Sounds shady.
What a surprise.
It's a good cause. But a terrible organization.
Don't forget, they also like to sue people over the color pink.
-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.
America Diabetes Association is worse in that particular regard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/health/25ada.html?pagewanted=all
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.
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?
Yeah it's pretty depressing.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jimmy_Fund
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.
It's why the only one I bother with is Child's Play.
It's still an absurd 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.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
That's how I feel about it.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Also, of course, Oxfam.
That is a clever hack.
Yea but breasts rule. After extensive research I only found like two HONRY PROSTATE videos
Exactly.
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.
:^: