Respect for those who eschew the pink

[detlef]

There is so much not to like about Susan G Komen.

 

They spent $1 million suing other charities for using their now trademarked phrase "for the cure"

 

They support bad science and spread faulty info regarding breast cancer

 

Slap pink on anything including buckets of fried chicken.

 

And, of course, they got political when they got all pro-life and threatened to stop funding cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood.

 

If you care to read more

[HowboutthemCowboys]

So they are expecting women to watch more football in October because there are pink accessories?

 

 

No. But the NFL and the team owners make a crap load of $$ selling pink spamshirts, tee shirts etc to the fans

[detlef]

No. But the NFL and the team owners make a crap load of $$ selling pink spamshirts, tee shirts etc to the fans

 

Which is yet another knock on the whole pink deal. Companies are making a crap-load selling pink appliances and what not while funneling a rather paltry amount towards Komen. Mind you, given what a farce Komen is, what the hell.

[stethant]

You should take a look at the financial information posted on the Susan G Komen Foundation website, found here: http://ww5.komen.org...nformation.html. They most certainly fund research and access to treatment, along with a host of other things that should surprise you with just how much they do.

True, but misses a larger issue. Not to bring this to the tailgate, but they have one of the highest ratios of money spent running a charity and not being spent on research, access to care, etc. of any charity. There are other breast cancer charities that do a better job at this.

 

The pink was a better idea before Komen went in the tank by politicizing their charity and instantly pissing off at least 50% of American women. Big breast cancer donator friends of mine, and friends who've survived breast cancer, won't touch Komen these days.

 

Now, what in the wide, wide world of sports this has to do with football is beyond me. I say make a donation if so inclined and keep the pink off the field.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

Which is yet another knock on the whole pink deal. Companies are making a crap-load selling pink appliances and what not while funneling a rather paltry amount towards Komen

 

exactly

[Go Skins]

What's the angle with the four weeks or whatever of the pink accessories? To your knowledge, has anyone wrote a check or volunteered or whatever after taking a gander at the St. Louis gay caballeros (with their striking pink sashes) or the like? Wouldn't it be better if the NFL just donated all of the $$$ that they spend on that gear?

 

I'm giving respect to the players who are bucking the trend. That even includes that backward baseball cap wearing buffoon, Tony Romo.

 

[And for you sensitive sorts, I have family and friends with cancer, etc. And I have black friends too.]

But apparently no gay friends... So it's okay to use their name/label or stereotypical ideas in deprecating ways. Got it.

[Puddy]

But apparently no gay friends... So it's okay to use their name/label or stereotypical ideas in deprecating ways. Got it.

 

Shows how much you know. Furd is great friends with Hankk.

[Chavez]

So you are being critical of their "marketing"

 

 

I don't "appreciate" your "condescension"

 

[keggerz]

 

 

I don't "appreciate" your "condescension"

 

"Channeling" Azz the best I can.

[Chavez]

"Channeling" Azz the best I can.

 

 

We already have one of those, and that's probably far too many.

[Bronco Billy]

Wow. A lot of guys threatened by a color and by those who don't think like they do in this thread.

[detlef]

Wow. A lot of guys threatened by a color and by those who don't think like they do in this thread.

 

[Bronco Billy]

 

 

Oh yeah? Take this:

 

[detlef]

Oh yeah? Take this:

 

 

So, in other words, you have no point and are just stirring the pot.

[Bronco Billy]

So, in other words, you have no point and are just stirring the pot.

 

 

I thought I made myself quite clear. Somehow it must have escaped you.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Should have the cheerleaders in very revealing pink lingerie. Show us what we are fighting to protect. Better yet they may just want to unleash those puppies. Let the big dogs eat.

[Bronco Billy]

Should have the cheerleaders in very revealing pink lingerie. Show us what we are fighting to protect. Better yet they may just want to unleash those puppies. Let the big dogs eat.

 

 

And then demonstrate to the fans the proper way to assist one's girlfriend in performing a thorough breast examination.

[BeeR]

Maybe I'm a bit bias as I am in the health field, but when someone asks for a donation to cure cancer, I respond by asking what we're doing to prevent cancer (i.e cigs, bad food, etc). Why are we spending millions of dollars trying to cure something that we allow the cigarette companies (and others) to foster?

 

 

Because even if you took away cigs/"bad food"/etc, we'd still have cancer? Trying to prevent cancer is well and fine, but we still need to be looking for cures (or even things which extend life at least, improve quality of life, on and on it goes). These things are all important.

 

 

 

There is so much not to like about Susan G Komen.

 

They spent $1 million suing other charities for using their now trademarked phrase "for the cure"

 

They support bad science and spread faulty info regarding breast cancer

 

Slap pink on anything including buckets of fried chicken.

 

And, of course, they got political when they got all pro-life and threatened to stop funding cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood.

 

If you care to read more

 

Some good points made on that site. Also a fair share of bias, opinion stated as "fact" and political agenda pushing (the very thing she rants on about regarding SGK). But far worse is her near total dismissal of screenings, which is irresponsible to the point of asinine. Basically, she's a pompous ass trying to tout herself as some kind of medical authority - when in fact she's just a journalist.

 

I prefer something from an actual authoritative site like the NCI:

 

...screening mammography remains an important, effective tool for early detection of breast cancer. It also indicates, however, that the evidence of benefit might vary, according to age and individual risk factors.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

And then demonstrate to the fans the proper way to assist one's girlfriend in performing a thorough breast examination.

 

 

Hello!

[Bronco Billy]

Some good points made on that site. Also a fair share of bias, opinion stated as "fact" and political agenda pushing (the very thing she rants on about regarding SGK). But far worse is her near total dismissal of screenings, which is irresponsible to the point of asinine. Basically, she's a pompous ass trying to tout herself as some kind of medical authority - when in fact she's just a journalist.

 

I prefer something from an actual authoritative site like the NCI:

 

...screening mammography remains an important, effective tool for early detection of breast cancer. It also indicates, however, that the evidence of benefit might vary, according to age and individual risk factors.

 

 

His political angle is pretty transparent, and thus he reaches to a like-minded jaded source to support his position. It's also why he's completely ideological in his opposition and is perfectly willing to dismiss any practical positives as long as his target is politically adverse. Disappointing, but seemingly getting more common these days.

[Bronco Billy]

Maybe I'm a bit bias as I am in the health field, but when someone asks for a donation to cure cancer, I respond by asking what we're doing to prevent cancer (i.e cigs, bad food, etc). Why are we spending millions of dollars trying to cure something that we allow the cigarette companies (and others) to foster?

 

If you keep backing out over a nail in the driveway, should you spend the money by continually fixing the tire, or pay someone to remove the nail?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that cancer could be practically eliminated by properly controlling people's behavior? If not, then that pretty much answers your question. To an even greater issue, I find your position particularly disturbing.

[Atlas]

Are you seriously suggesting that cancer could be practically eliminated by properly controlling people's behavior? If not, then that pretty much answers your question. To an even greater issue, I find your position particularly disturbing.

 

 

First...No, of course it won't be completely eliminated and only a fool would try to extrapolate that out of my post.

 

Second..What do you find disturbing?

 

That half our nation is trying to find a cure for cancer while the other half is busy causing it?

I'm exagerating to make a point....but its like that fat person on the treadmill eating potato chips.

 

How about spending money to shut down the tabacco market and then we can concertrate on what we can't control?

How about we take the money spent on treating the avoidable cancers that the insurance industry and goverment insurance pays and spend that on research for the rest?

 

I can't tell you how high the percentge is in my office when I take a patient history and I hear "cancer" and "yes' to my next question which is "smoke?" Damn near 100% Just went to the funeral for a 27yo attorney...tongue cancer....spread to the lungs...and by the way...chewing tabacoo.

[Atlas]

Big breast cancer donator friends of mine,

 

 

Had to read this twice.

[detlef]

His political angle is pretty transparent, and thus he reaches to a like-minded jaded source to support his position. It's also why he's completely ideological in his opposition and is perfectly willing to dismiss any practical positives as long as his target is politically adverse. Disappointing, but seemingly getting more common these days.

 

Full disclosure: My primary beef with Komen was the fact that they were running around suing other charities for trying to move in on their turf and the bit about having a failed right-wing political candidate take over and try to turn them into a defacto anti-choice group. And, given the massive number of people who had previously given their money who, in turn, were outraged by this, I was not alone.

 

None the less, in the spirit of offering a link, I just googled "Susan G Komen scandal" and grabbed the first page I found that mentioned the suits and the whole anti planned parenthood bit. I honestly didn't previously know about the whole bad science thing and just added that on as a "oh by the way". Seems pretty damning, but I'm not an expert on cancer, so I'm not going to push that issue.

 

The fact remains that Komen is pretty effing lame when it comes to being a charity:

1) More concerned about their bottom line than doing good? Well, they sue others who are trying to raise money for cancer because they're using phrases they've trademarked. So there's a check

2) Not exactly an enviable ratio of money raised to money spent on what they're supposedly raising it for? That was covered by another in this thread.

3) Pulling the carpet out on people who had given them money by putting politics ahead what they're supposedly supposed to be doing? Um, yep.

 

Oh, and Bronco? Wasn't it you that got all "if you've got something to say to me..."? You're an effing dim wit and a hypocrite.

[detlef]

Because even if you took away cigs/"bad food"/etc, we'd still have cancer? Trying to prevent cancer is well and fine, but we still need to be looking for cures (or even things which extend life at least, improve quality of life, on and on it goes). These things are all important.

 

 

Some good points made on that site. Also a fair share of bias, opinion stated as "fact" and political agenda pushing (the very thing she rants on about regarding SGK). But far worse is her near total dismissal of screenings, which is irresponsible to the point of asinine. Basically, she's a pompous ass trying to tout herself as some kind of medical authority - when in fact she's just a journalist.

 

I prefer something from an actual authoritative site like the NCI:

 

...screening mammography remains an important, effective tool for early detection of breast cancer. It also indicates, however, that the evidence of benefit might vary, according to age and individual risk factors.

 

Like I mentioned to Bronco, the whole bad science deal was actually not something I was familiar with before I read that blog and merely linked it because of the bits about the lawsuits and anti-planned parenthood flap.

 

None the less, your more credible source doesn't exactly contradict to what the journalist was saying, so thanks for offering a credible back-up. And I agree, by the way, that she was rather pompous.