As a general rule, I'd avoid charities like the Red Cross, Komen and others that create corporate cultures and populate their boards with CEOs, wealthy donors and GOP/Democratic Party operatives and politicians. They're always more focused on public relations, internal compensation and networking than actually doing good work. If you are looking at a medical charity and its board and executive staff aren't made up of Ph.D.s and M.D.s with experience directly relevant to the charity, move on.
Can you provide more detail on how they are less than good? A quick peek on Charity Navigator shows them with very high numbers and I have heard nothing less than good about what they do.
Have you ever read And The Band Played On, or seen the HBO take on it? The American Red Cross's resistance to screening diagnostics on donated blood in the early years of AIDS becoming prevalent was absolutely shameful. While they do plenty of good as an organization, their actions then were more disgusting than anything SGK's been accused of in this thread.
The ARC certainly wasn't alone in that regard; the national network of blood banks and the FDA's blood products division were similarly slow to act on evidence that HIV-infected blood was a public health risk.
I certainly don't love the ARC (even though I volunteer for them), they're kind of a comedy of errors in a lot of ways. But their mistakes regarding AIDS were neither malicious nor unique. A lot of very important people made a lot of bad decisions during the early 80s with regards to AIDS.
They weren't alone, no. But that doesn't make their failure to act despite repeated requests any less shameful. There's enough not to like about their policies regarding blood over the years that I refuse to donate to them or any other large blood bank like Lifesource, and instead donate directly to hospitals that can put the blood to use without any bullshit.
Of course, it's pretty strange to refuse to donate to a group over a policy mistake from 40 years ago while talking up mosquito net charities, which are mostly involved in distributing fishing equipment due to their failure to tell the recipients what the nets are actually for.
As a general rule, I'd avoid charities like the Red Cross, Komen and others that create corporate cultures and populate their boards with CEOs, wealthy donors and GOP/Democratic Party operatives and politicians. They're always more focused on public relations, internal compensation and networking than actually doing good work. If you are looking at a medical charity and its board and executive staff aren't made up of Ph.D.s and M.D.s with experience directly relevant to the charity, move on.
Can you provide more detail on how they are less than good? A quick peek on Charity Navigator shows them with very high numbers and I have heard nothing less than good about what they do.
Have you ever read And The Band Played On, or seen the HBO take on it? The American Red Cross's resistance to screening diagnostics on donated blood in the early years of AIDS becoming prevalent was absolutely shameful. While they do plenty of good as an organization, their actions then were more disgusting than anything SGK's been accused of in this thread.
The ARC certainly wasn't alone in that regard; the national network of blood banks and the FDA's blood products division were similarly slow to act on evidence that HIV-infected blood was a public health risk.
I certainly don't love the ARC (even though I volunteer for them), they're kind of a comedy of errors in a lot of ways. But their mistakes regarding AIDS were neither malicious nor unique. A lot of very important people made a lot of bad decisions during the early 80s with regards to AIDS.
They weren't alone, no. But that doesn't make their failure to act despite repeated requests any less shameful. There's enough not to like about their policies regarding blood over the years that I refuse to donate to them or any other large blood bank like Lifesource, and instead donate directly to hospitals that can put the blood to use without any bullshit.
Of course, it's pretty strange to refuse to donate to a group over a policy mistake from 40 years ago while talking up mosquito net charities, which are mostly involved in distributing fishing equipment due to their failure to tell the recipients what the nets are actually for.
I think prostate cancer awareness is actually blue.
you know, blue for boys/guys/men.
Well that's just silly. The colour for that entire area is clearly brown.
You do know what the prostate gland does? It's also not really in that area, it's just the interior walls are a lot thinner than the exterior ones.
Hey man, you can't deny that your average american male associates prostrate cancer with losing their butt virginity. Don't mean it's correct. :P
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Brendan Daly, an executive vice president at Ogilvy public relations, confirmed that Komen had sought Ogilvy’s help this week. Brinker told affiliates Saturday that they would also be getting help on crisis communications from Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary in the George W. Bush administration. Neither consultant was involved in the funding decision.
Some corporate sponsors are reviewing their partnerships. Komen affiliates have already lost donations and Race for the Cure sponsorships.
But the reaction is totally positive according to the organization.
I think prostate cancer awareness is actually blue.
you know, blue for boys/guys/men.
Well that's just silly. The colour for that entire area is clearly brown.
You do know what the prostate gland does? It's also not really in that area, it's just the interior walls are a lot thinner than the exterior ones.
Hey man, you can't deny that your average american male associates prostrate cancer with losing their butt virginity. Don't mean it's correct. :P
In that case, maybe someone should raise the general awareness of the facts involved?
So you want to poke some holes in peoples misconceptions? Maybe prod the public's awareness and probe into what they really think about prostate cancer.
:P
Seriously speaking I am all for raising prostate cancer awareness. Goddamn that kills a lot of guys. It is an uncomfortable test (and I wish they could do something about that) but prostate cancer as a guy is something you can't ignore. Cause it will box you.
Just boycott SGK and contribute to organization focused on cardiovascular health. Their reversal on PP grants means nothing, because their impact on women's health is minimal and will never amount to much. Stop wasting resources on boobs and pay attention to the real killers.
-.-
Breast cancer kills about 7 and half million people every year. Diseases as a whole have us by the balls (heart disease kills about 17~ million every year, AIDS kills about 2~ million while sentencing another 30~ million to torturous death), but breast cancer is by no means a small player & research is important. More important than my political views on abortion or how to educate young women about sex, even, I would say.
On that same token, there are plenty of organizations to donate to that will get your money into the hands of a researcher, university or pharmaceutical company, so Komen isn't exactly some necessary pillar of cancer charity.
I'm a bit confused regarding the outrage, though. NGOs tend to have pretty unstable relationships with one another, because each tends to think that they have figured-out the 'best' way of allocating funding - so these types of arrangements get broken all of the time. This one was probably fuelled by political ideology, but so what? Suppose that SGK had broken it off with Planned Parenthood over some non-partisan petty issue: would you still be outraged?
Do you even give money to this charity or any other charity anyway? If you do, and you wanted your money to go to Planned Parenthood, why didn't you just donate directly to them?
Because they're playing political games with women's health. Which, granted, is something the Republican Party and the Catholic Church (well, the bishops thereof) do all the time, but this was particularly brazen.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm a bit confused regarding the outrage, though. NGOs tend to have pretty unstable relationships with one another, because each tends to think that they have figured-out the 'best' way of allocating funding - so these types of arrangements get broken all of the time. This one was probably fuelled by political ideology, but so what? Suppose that SGK had broken it off with Planned Parenthood over some non-partisan petty issue: would you still be outraged?
It would depend entirely on the issue.
This particular issue was because they wanted to pander to conservative ideology and in doing so attempted to make getting actual care more difficult by pulling money from PP.
Do you even give money to this charity or any other charity anyway? If you do, and you wanted your money to go to Planned Parenthood, why didn't you just donate directly to them?
SGK funds breast cancer awareness and research. PP provides medical services and advice to those who need it. While the latter is helped by the former, they both still have different overall functions.
Because they're playing political games with women's health. Which, granted, is something the Republican Party and the Catholic Church (well, the bishops thereof) do all the time, but this was particularly brazen.
...I'm not seeing the gaming part. "We're not going to continue our funding partnership with PP, because abortions," is stupid, petty and overtly political, yes, but I don't see them using this as a strategic manoeuvre.
Like I said before, these funding partnerships are always pretty tenuous, and NGOs have become estranged from each other over much more ludicrous issues than women's rights.
SGK funds breast cancer awareness and research. PP provides medical services and advice to those who need it. While the latter is helped by the former, they both still have different overall functions.
Yes, but that doesn't answer my question. If you wanted to support Planned Parenthood and it's initiatives, why wouldn't you donate directly to them rather than donating to SGK and hoping that their PP partition would remain in place indefinitely?
Because they're playing political games with women's health. Which, granted, is something the Republican Party and the Catholic Church (well, the bishops thereof) do all the time, but this was particularly brazen.
...I'm not seeing the gaming part. "We're not going to continue our funding partnership with PP, because abortions," is stupid, petty and overtly political, yes, but I don't see them using this as a strategic manoeuvre.
Like I said before, these funding partnerships are always pretty tenuous, and NGOs have become estranged from each other over much more ludicrous issues than women's rights.
This wasn't a strategic play, it was a Coup d'état. The vice president put her own political agenda in action against the defining agenda of the charity she worked for.
People who had previously respected (and worked for) the organization now have great cause to doubt the sincerity of the executives with regard to the stated mission. This is death to an organization that relies on volunteers and goodwill.
SGK funds breast cancer awareness and research. PP provides medical services and advice to those who need it. While the latter is helped by the former, they both still have different overall functions.
Yes, but that doesn't answer my question. If you wanted to support Planned Parenthood and it's initiatives, why wouldn't you donate directly to them rather than donating to SGK and hoping that their PP partition would remain in place indefinitely?
People giving money to SGK could give money to both. More importantly they could presumably be certain they weren't giving money to a breast cancer organization that would work against women actually wanting to get help with health issues.
And I would not consider women's rights ludicrous.
This wasn't a strategic play, it was a Coup d'état. The vice president put her own political agenda in action against the defining agenda of the charity she worked for.
People who had previously respected (and worked for) the organization now have great cause to doubt the sincerity of the executives with regard to the stated mission. This is death to an organization that relies on volunteers and goodwill.
Man, there is not a single NGO led by some faultless saint (or a board full of them), so anyone who sees this ugly aspect of the VP's ambitions and then doubts the entire cause is being foolish. I think it was said earlier in the thread that there are much more efficient organizations to donate to, so I'm not eager to stay in SGK's corner here, but they did more than a few things that were strokes of genius & have served as inspirations for other charities, so the melodramatic demonizing of them in this thread over this singular move is ridiculous.
The group of individuals who devised the pink ribbon program were, in that moment, just flat-out brilliant & beautiful. I wouldn't care if it turned-out they also participated in KKK rallies - that particular plan was mind-blowing in it's execution & success, and SGK deserves all of the credit associated with that. Until you've put sneaker to sidewalk and actually tired to get people to part with even a few pennies for any cause, you have no idea how difficult is to create a successful fundraising scheme - and SGK made it look easy (and other NGOs have followed in their footsteps, and made huge gains as a result).
The group of individuals who devised the pink ribbon program were, in that moment, just flat-out brilliant & beautiful. I wouldn't care if it turned-out they also participated in KKK rallies
This isn't people getting upset at someone's personal beliefs. This is them getting upset at them implementing them in to an organization that goes against those beliefs. She did something that hurt the organization's ultimate goals.
The group of individuals who devised the pink ribbon program were, in that moment, just flat-out brilliant & beautiful. I wouldn't care if it turned-out they also participated in KKK rallies - that particular plan was mind-blowing in it's execution & success, and SGK deserves all of the credit associated with that. Until you've put sneaker to sidewalk and actually tired to get people to part with even a few pennies for any cause, you have no idea how difficult is to create a successful fundraising scheme - and SGK made it look easy (and other NGOs have followed in their footsteps, and made huge gains as a result).
Well the "pink" ribbon was stolen from an artist collective after they created the red ribbon campaign for AIDS. So, yeah, great job there.
At times I'm sure SGK did some wonderful things as an organization but it seems we're coming to the end of those times. Like a large number of ideological organizations it seems to have chosen self-perpetuation over fidelity to ideology.
I'm also uncertain what you're really getting at with regards to their efficiencies at fundraising. It is interesting as a sort of technical aside but it's not really relevant to pretty much anything to do with this.
People giving money to SGK could give money to both. More importantly they could presumably be certain they weren't giving money to a breast cancer organization that would work against women actually wanting to get help with health issues.
And I would not consider women's rights ludicrous.
Neither would I I was saying that other, similar partnerships have ended over ludicrous issues. But you knew that, and decided to go for this characterisation of my statement anyway, because that's what people do in D&D.
And maybe it's just that I have an unfair advantage working firsthand with NGOs, but I would never recommend writing one check to one organization that you hope then also trickles through to someone else. Even when they're at their best, money moving through those channels moves very slowly.
If you wanted to support SGK & Planned Parenthood, I'd have recommended writing a check to each.
...Has anyone here actually written a check to SGK that they are now angry about writing because they thought some of it might eventually end-up in Planned Parenthood's coffers?
And maybe it's just that I have an unfair advantage working firsthand with NGOs, but I would never recommend writing one check to one organization that you hope then also trickles through to someone else. Even when they're at their best, money moving through those channels moves very slowly.
But it does move. So it's irrelevant. SGK is supposed to help women's health and opted to hurt it for the sake of hurting it.
The group of individuals who devised the pink ribbon program were, in that moment, just flat-out brilliant & beautiful. I wouldn't care if it turned-out they also participated in KKK rallies - that particular plan was mind-blowing in it's execution & success, and SGK deserves all of the credit associated with that.
I'd think twice about donating to any charity with members that would endorse the KKK or any other terrorist organizations.
Well the "pink" ribbon was stolen from an artist collective after they created the red ribbon campaign for AIDS. So, yeah, great job there.
It was not 'stolen'. This is one of those extremely petty issues I was talking about earlier: Haley was at first receptive to the idea proposed by SGK, and then got upset when she saw what she perceived as a 'commercialization' of her symbol, so attempted to sue to stop it's use (claiming IP ownership of the red ribbon). SGK circumvented Haley's litigation by changing the colour of the ribbon.
The idea itself - partnering with a cosmetic company & women's magazine in order to create branding for cancer donations - was brilliant, and raised money in a way that very few other NGOs have (most just pay people full time wages to literally do what I did for a while - canvass neighbourhoods for sponsorships, with very hit-and-miss results).
Well the "pink" ribbon was stolen from an artist collective after they created the red ribbon campaign for AIDS. So, yeah, great job there.
It was not 'stolen'. This is one of those extremely petty issues I was talking about earlier: Haley was at first receptive to the idea proposed by SGK, and then got upset when she saw what she perceived as a 'commercialization' of her symbol, so attempted to sue to stop it's use (claiming IP ownership of the red ribbon). SGK circumvented Haley's litigation by changing the colour of the ribbon.
The idea itself - partnering with a cosmetic company & women's magazine in order to create branding for cancer donations - was brilliant, and raised money in a way that very few other NGOs have (most just pay people full time wages to literally do what I did for a while - canvass neighbourhoods for sponsorships, with very hit-and-miss results).
Okay, they didn't "steal", they just did exactly the same thing as somebody else was already doing.
Also, the application of modern branding to charity work is...well I'm not comfortable with "brilliant" there. It is one of those things that seems obvious in retrospect and actually doing it for the first time is an important step, still...."brilliant" is pushing it.
Really that whole thing is just a digression to the question you started with which was why people were pissed at a Charitable Organization taking actions directly against their stated Charitable Objective.
Really that whole thing is just a digression to the question you started with which was why people were pissed at a Charitable Organization taking actions directly against their stated Charitable Objective.
I'm really just miffed at the underlying premise of the 'outrage' - that people are angry that their donated dollars did not go where they wanted them to go. If anyone really did send money to SGK and is now upset that it won't be partitioned in part to Planned Parenthood, I can sympathize (though I'd also hope this will wisen you to the fact that NGO agreements are as frail as any business's agreements, and you do the partitioning yourself in the future), but I suspect that most people wagging their fingers / defacing SGK's website haven't donated one red cent to any cause in their life, and this is just an excuse for them to attack & ostracise something that, as a whole, is much better than they will ever be.
The issue that everyone has is that this was entirely motivated by politics and the outcome proved more harmful to the cause than it was helpful. Sure it would have made the fundies happy that the money wasn't going to an institution that supports abortion; however, they missed that the fact that no one cent of that money was used for abortions because it was all used to help poor women have better access to breast cancer screening. By making it harder for PP to provide that service, they make it harder for those women to get access such services since PP was their only means to get it. They essentially said "we don't have an issue causing harm to the poor over something that is a really a non-issue (it's a non-issue because the funds aren't used for any abortions) because we feel it's more important to play politics than to champion the cause."
I'd love more attention paid to colon cancer (mom was diagnosed 2 years ago, she's fine), testicular cancer (dad was diagnosed 12 years ago, he's fine), and lupus (best friend died from complications 6 years ago, he's not fine...)
And heart disease and alzheimers and arthritis, and everything else.
Most of us have had loved ones die from one disease or another, but I hope that we could step back and take an objective look at mortality rates and other significant factors. If disease A kills the most people in this country than disease B, then I would hope it gets more funding. If it doesn't then I believe that is a problem and we need to reevaluate. Yes, I agree with you that more attention needs to be paid to all the diseases out there, but I think we have to prioritize our limited resources.
As for SGKs spending on education, I need to do some more research and see what they count as "education." I'm all for education but if they are just spending money on slapping pink on every commercial product out there then I don't think that is really education. That sort of stuff does bring about awareness but I would rather money be spent on actual education.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Really that whole thing is just a digression to the question you started with which was why people were pissed at a Charitable Organization taking actions directly against their stated Charitable Objective.
I'm really just miffed at the underlying premise of the 'outrage' - that people are angry that their donated dollars did not go where they wanted them to go. If anyone really did send money to SGK and is now upset that it won't be partitioned in part to Planned Parenthood, I can sympathize (though I'd also hope this will wisen you to the fact that NGO agreements are as frail as any business's agreements, and you do the partitioning yourself in the future), but I suspect that most people wagging their fingers / defacing SGK's website haven't donated one red cent to any cause in their life, and this is just an excuse for them to attack & ostracise something that, as a whole, is much better than they will ever be.
The people who support SGK obviously only care about raping children. Hey, making nonsensical shit up about people IS fun.
Really, though, do you not see a problem with them taking away money that actually helps women's health in order to court people who think cervical cancer is a good thing?
It's so nice arguing with someone who is confused about everything instead of just having an opinion like everyone else.
I stated my opinion:
"We're not going to continue our funding partnership with PP, because abortions," is stupid, petty and overtly political
...But I'm not outraged, because I've never donated to SGK and never will (what shamefully little money I donate each year goes to MSF and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). Very few people seem have a horse in this race or were actually disenfranchised, so the Internet rage feels phony.
Really, though, do you not see a problem with them taking away money that actually helps women's health in order to court people who think cervical cancer is a good thing?
They're not 'taking away money'; they're cancelling a fund-sharing deal. Again, this happens all of the time between NGOs. If this was a government agency taking away PP's funding or something akin to that, yes, I'd be mad and I could understand people being mad - but this isn't that.
Ender do you honestly not understand why people would be upset a charitable organization would work against their own goals? Really?
Yes, really, I don't understand people being upset at a charitable organization they never gave / give money to anyway. Cheating, fraud, violence & antagonism are the things that I would say merit this level of outrage - not the cancellation of a partnership over a political ideology. Yes, they're working against themselves - but that doesn't impact anyone other than their own donors.
EDIT:
The people who support SGK obviously only care about raping children. Hey, making nonsensical shit up about people IS fun.
I'm not making shit up. Very, very few people donate any money at all to charity.
Oh man Ender you totally have a point. Why stop giving them money and encourage others to stop as well due to a gross violation of their stated mission when I can just quietly stop giving them my money and respectfully avoid hurting their feelings/profit margin? Why didn't I think of that?
It's so rude to try to hurt a group of people just because they do horrible things, so rude!
The easiest solution is also the strongest message when it comes to NGOs: don't send them your money.
And that happens when people talk to each other about what NGOs do, and why they should or shouldn't give money to a particular NGO.
Which is outrageous, for some reason.
And aparently confusing.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I am fine with saying the SGK is a horrible organization and their wallet needs to be hurt for their stupid, horrible actions. Fuck yeah, sign me up... and this is from someone who participated multiple years in race for the cure, and has worked in a practice that the sister of SGK visited and lauded.
Where I draw the line is the (few) people saying that breast cancer itself isn't a big deal and it shouldn't get as much money as it does. Fuck you, it deserves MORE money than it currently gets. So do a lot of things we should be researching harder. We shouldn't be taking money away from BrCa research and awareness, we should be taking money away from useless wastes of government and private spending and directing it towards more things that save and enhance lives.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Brendan Daly, an executive vice president at Ogilvy public relations, confirmed that Komen had sought Ogilvy’s help this week. Brinker told affiliates Saturday that they would also be getting help on crisis communications from Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary in the George W. Bush administration. Neither consultant was involved in the funding decision.
Some corporate sponsors are reviewing their partnerships. Komen affiliates have already lost donations and Race for the Cure sponsorships.
But the reaction is totally positive according to the organization.
Man, that article's quotes completely miss the point. They all come across as "hey, we need to rebuild the brand" and "we should have communicated better" and "PP had better PR than we did", and at no point is it "hey, we shouldn't put transparently political bullshit in front of the charity's work, shit, our bad."
None of it comes across as "we will not do that again" and instead "we need to out-PR the people we decide to fuck with"
Posts
Of course, it's pretty strange to refuse to donate to a group over a policy mistake from 40 years ago while talking up mosquito net charities, which are mostly involved in distributing fishing equipment due to their failure to tell the recipients what the nets are actually for.
Well that's just silly. The colour for that entire area is clearly brown.
Of course, it's pretty strange to refuse to donate to a group over a policy mistake from 40 years ago while talking up mosquito net charities, which are mostly involved in distributing fishing equipment due to their failure to tell the recipients what the nets are actually for.
Well that's just silly. The colour for that entire area is clearly brown.
You do know what the prostate gland does? It's also not really in that area, it's just the interior walls are a lot thinner than the exterior ones.
Hey man, you can't deny that your average american male associates prostrate cancer with losing their butt virginity. Don't mean it's correct. :P
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
In that case, maybe someone should raise the general awareness of the facts involved?
So you want to poke some holes in peoples misconceptions? Maybe prod the public's awareness and probe into what they really think about prostate cancer.
:P
Seriously speaking I am all for raising prostate cancer awareness. Goddamn that kills a lot of guys. It is an uncomfortable test (and I wish they could do something about that) but prostate cancer as a guy is something you can't ignore. Cause it will box you.
-.-
Breast cancer kills about 7 and half million people every year. Diseases as a whole have us by the balls (heart disease kills about 17~ million every year, AIDS kills about 2~ million while sentencing another 30~ million to torturous death), but breast cancer is by no means a small player & research is important. More important than my political views on abortion or how to educate young women about sex, even, I would say.
On that same token, there are plenty of organizations to donate to that will get your money into the hands of a researcher, university or pharmaceutical company, so Komen isn't exactly some necessary pillar of cancer charity.
I'm a bit confused regarding the outrage, though. NGOs tend to have pretty unstable relationships with one another, because each tends to think that they have figured-out the 'best' way of allocating funding - so these types of arrangements get broken all of the time. This one was probably fuelled by political ideology, but so what? Suppose that SGK had broken it off with Planned Parenthood over some non-partisan petty issue: would you still be outraged?
Do you even give money to this charity or any other charity anyway? If you do, and you wanted your money to go to Planned Parenthood, why didn't you just donate directly to them?
It would depend entirely on the issue.
This particular issue was because they wanted to pander to conservative ideology and in doing so attempted to make getting actual care more difficult by pulling money from PP.
SGK funds breast cancer awareness and research. PP provides medical services and advice to those who need it. While the latter is helped by the former, they both still have different overall functions.
...I'm not seeing the gaming part. "We're not going to continue our funding partnership with PP, because abortions," is stupid, petty and overtly political, yes, but I don't see them using this as a strategic manoeuvre.
Like I said before, these funding partnerships are always pretty tenuous, and NGOs have become estranged from each other over much more ludicrous issues than women's rights.
Yes, but that doesn't answer my question. If you wanted to support Planned Parenthood and it's initiatives, why wouldn't you donate directly to them rather than donating to SGK and hoping that their PP partition would remain in place indefinitely?
This wasn't a strategic play, it was a Coup d'état. The vice president put her own political agenda in action against the defining agenda of the charity she worked for.
People who had previously respected (and worked for) the organization now have great cause to doubt the sincerity of the executives with regard to the stated mission. This is death to an organization that relies on volunteers and goodwill.
People giving money to SGK could give money to both. More importantly they could presumably be certain they weren't giving money to a breast cancer organization that would work against women actually wanting to get help with health issues.
And I would not consider women's rights ludicrous.
Man, there is not a single NGO led by some faultless saint (or a board full of them), so anyone who sees this ugly aspect of the VP's ambitions and then doubts the entire cause is being foolish. I think it was said earlier in the thread that there are much more efficient organizations to donate to, so I'm not eager to stay in SGK's corner here, but they did more than a few things that were strokes of genius & have served as inspirations for other charities, so the melodramatic demonizing of them in this thread over this singular move is ridiculous.
The group of individuals who devised the pink ribbon program were, in that moment, just flat-out brilliant & beautiful. I wouldn't care if it turned-out they also participated in KKK rallies - that particular plan was mind-blowing in it's execution & success, and SGK deserves all of the credit associated with that. Until you've put sneaker to sidewalk and actually tired to get people to part with even a few pennies for any cause, you have no idea how difficult is to create a successful fundraising scheme - and SGK made it look easy (and other NGOs have followed in their footsteps, and made huge gains as a result).
This isn't people getting upset at someone's personal beliefs. This is them getting upset at them implementing them in to an organization that goes against those beliefs. She did something that hurt the organization's ultimate goals.
Well the "pink" ribbon was stolen from an artist collective after they created the red ribbon campaign for AIDS. So, yeah, great job there.
At times I'm sure SGK did some wonderful things as an organization but it seems we're coming to the end of those times. Like a large number of ideological organizations it seems to have chosen self-perpetuation over fidelity to ideology.
I'm also uncertain what you're really getting at with regards to their efficiencies at fundraising. It is interesting as a sort of technical aside but it's not really relevant to pretty much anything to do with this.
Neither would I I was saying that other, similar partnerships have ended over ludicrous issues. But you knew that, and decided to go for this characterisation of my statement anyway, because that's what people do in D&D.
And maybe it's just that I have an unfair advantage working firsthand with NGOs, but I would never recommend writing one check to one organization that you hope then also trickles through to someone else. Even when they're at their best, money moving through those channels moves very slowly.
If you wanted to support SGK & Planned Parenthood, I'd have recommended writing a check to each.
...Has anyone here actually written a check to SGK that they are now angry about writing because they thought some of it might eventually end-up in Planned Parenthood's coffers?
But it does move. So it's irrelevant. SGK is supposed to help women's health and opted to hurt it for the sake of hurting it.
I'd think twice about donating to any charity with members that would endorse the KKK or any other terrorist organizations.
It was not 'stolen'. This is one of those extremely petty issues I was talking about earlier: Haley was at first receptive to the idea proposed by SGK, and then got upset when she saw what she perceived as a 'commercialization' of her symbol, so attempted to sue to stop it's use (claiming IP ownership of the red ribbon). SGK circumvented Haley's litigation by changing the colour of the ribbon.
The idea itself - partnering with a cosmetic company & women's magazine in order to create branding for cancer donations - was brilliant, and raised money in a way that very few other NGOs have (most just pay people full time wages to literally do what I did for a while - canvass neighbourhoods for sponsorships, with very hit-and-miss results).
Okay, they didn't "steal", they just did exactly the same thing as somebody else was already doing.
Also, the application of modern branding to charity work is...well I'm not comfortable with "brilliant" there. It is one of those things that seems obvious in retrospect and actually doing it for the first time is an important step, still...."brilliant" is pushing it.
Really that whole thing is just a digression to the question you started with which was why people were pissed at a Charitable Organization taking actions directly against their stated Charitable Objective.
I'm really just miffed at the underlying premise of the 'outrage' - that people are angry that their donated dollars did not go where they wanted them to go. If anyone really did send money to SGK and is now upset that it won't be partitioned in part to Planned Parenthood, I can sympathize (though I'd also hope this will wisen you to the fact that NGO agreements are as frail as any business's agreements, and you do the partitioning yourself in the future), but I suspect that most people wagging their fingers / defacing SGK's website haven't donated one red cent to any cause in their life, and this is just an excuse for them to attack & ostracise something that, as a whole, is much better than they will ever be.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/komen-planned-parenthood-showdown-was-a-long-time-coming/article_e89acf6a-56a3-5932-a58a-e05c3aa45cb0.html
The issue that everyone has is that this was entirely motivated by politics and the outcome proved more harmful to the cause than it was helpful. Sure it would have made the fundies happy that the money wasn't going to an institution that supports abortion; however, they missed that the fact that no one cent of that money was used for abortions because it was all used to help poor women have better access to breast cancer screening. By making it harder for PP to provide that service, they make it harder for those women to get access such services since PP was their only means to get it. They essentially said "we don't have an issue causing harm to the poor over something that is a really a non-issue (it's a non-issue because the funds aren't used for any abortions) because we feel it's more important to play politics than to champion the cause."
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Most of us have had loved ones die from one disease or another, but I hope that we could step back and take an objective look at mortality rates and other significant factors. If disease A kills the most people in this country than disease B, then I would hope it gets more funding. If it doesn't then I believe that is a problem and we need to reevaluate. Yes, I agree with you that more attention needs to be paid to all the diseases out there, but I think we have to prioritize our limited resources.
As for SGKs spending on education, I need to do some more research and see what they count as "education." I'm all for education but if they are just spending money on slapping pink on every commercial product out there then I don't think that is really education. That sort of stuff does bring about awareness but I would rather money be spent on actual education.
The people who support SGK obviously only care about raping children. Hey, making nonsensical shit up about people IS fun.
Really, though, do you not see a problem with them taking away money that actually helps women's health in order to court people who think cervical cancer is a good thing?
Steam: pazython
I stated my opinion:
...But I'm not outraged, because I've never donated to SGK and never will (what shamefully little money I donate each year goes to MSF and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). Very few people seem have a horse in this race or were actually disenfranchised, so the Internet rage feels phony.
They're not 'taking away money'; they're cancelling a fund-sharing deal. Again, this happens all of the time between NGOs. If this was a government agency taking away PP's funding or something akin to that, yes, I'd be mad and I could understand people being mad - but this isn't that.
Yes, really, I don't understand people being upset at a charitable organization they never gave / give money to anyway. Cheating, fraud, violence & antagonism are the things that I would say merit this level of outrage - not the cancellation of a partnership over a political ideology. Yes, they're working against themselves - but that doesn't impact anyone other than their own donors.
EDIT:
I'm not making shit up. Very, very few people donate any money at all to charity.
And we the public can get outraged in an effort to pressure them to reconsider. Whats your point?
And I can be confused with / shake my head at / criticize the 'outrage'.
The easiest solution is also the strongest message when it comes to NGOs: don't send them your money.
And that happens when people talk to each other about what NGOs do, and why they should or shouldn't give money to a particular NGO.
Which is outrageous, for some reason.
http://jezebel.com/5881996/komen-halted-funding-for-12-million-in-stem-cell-research-like-we-wouldnt-notice?tag=disgrace-for-the-cure
And man...those first two comments hit the nail right on the head.
It's so rude to try to hurt a group of people just because they do horrible things, so rude!
And then, you know, tell others what you're doing and why. Especially since one can donate to SGK and hardly be aware of it.
The strongest message you can send is when you, and only you, stop giving money.
What do you mean I don't make sense?
And aparently confusing.
Where I draw the line is the (few) people saying that breast cancer itself isn't a big deal and it shouldn't get as much money as it does. Fuck you, it deserves MORE money than it currently gets. So do a lot of things we should be researching harder. We shouldn't be taking money away from BrCa research and awareness, we should be taking money away from useless wastes of government and private spending and directing it towards more things that save and enhance lives.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Man, that article's quotes completely miss the point. They all come across as "hey, we need to rebuild the brand" and "we should have communicated better" and "PP had better PR than we did", and at no point is it "hey, we shouldn't put transparently political bullshit in front of the charity's work, shit, our bad."
None of it comes across as "we will not do that again" and instead "we need to out-PR the people we decide to fuck with"