Respect for those who eschew the pink

[westdeerwarrior]

Well obviously It's working this thread is proof

[Furd]

Awareness = $$$$

 

Its worked. Everyone on this planet knows that pink=breast cancer. Time to move on to something else.

 

I've met Furd and doubt he has black friends...

 

 

You don't know me, fool.

You disown me, cool.

 

How's my street cred now?

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

 

 

I'd be surprised if a gay dude took offense to that.

[flemingd]

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?

 

The irony of this post in a discussion about awareness is stunning. Awareness is all about the things you mention but apparently aren't "aware" of. Funding for research, screening and early detection, and public education aimed at prevention are all goals. You rail about tobacco, but that make up less than 30% of all cancers. TWINKIES ANYONE is "bad food"? Most cancers don't have a reliable prevention. We don't know enough about the true nature of cancers, thus the focus on research. Early detection and treatment are the most important factors in nearly all survival statistics.

[Bronco Billy]

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?

 

 

What do I find disturbing? Seriously? That you intend to use the government to control all sorts of behavior that you consider to be bad. And do you really think making tobacco products illegal is going to stop people from using them? Really? Did you miss how prohibition worked out? Or perhaps the laws against Josh Gordon use?

 

Government has its roles. This is not one of them, It costs tons of money to enforce when they choose to get involved, it creates a hugh base for black market sales/crime when is does, and it turns many normal citizens into criminals. Plus it flat out doesn't even remotely control the behavior intended and removes the ability to properly regulate products to be relatively much more safe for use than unmonitored alternatives - since at least tens of millions people will make and/or use these products regardless.

 

Other than that, you've got a great idea there...

Edited October 7, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[loaf]

Who's chewing the pink?

[i_am_the_swammi]

it's absolutely inane to say breast cancer gets too much attention rather than to simply say other cancers don't have(and need) organizations that do as good a job with public awareness as breast cancer does.

 

 

+ gazillion

 

In essence, people are ripping the PR folks that run the Breast Cancer Awareness campaign as being too good? They have moved this from a couple pink ribbons to a national trend that lasts a month and has the number one sport in the USA promoting its cause.

 

Kudos to them on a job well done, and lets home the money that continues to be raised will someday go to finding a cure.

[detlef]

+ gazillion

 

In essence, people are ripping the PR folks that run the Breast Cancer Awareness campaign as being too good? They have moved this from a couple pink ribbons to a national trend that lasts a month and has the number one sport in the USA promoting its cause.

 

Kudos to them on a job well done, and lets home the money that continues to be raised will someday go to finding a cure.

 

That all depends. If the job well done is actually hiring a ton of people to raise money and perpetuate their image, one might be a little disappointed with how much actually goes to finding a cure. That is, unless you're satisfied with simply getting everyone wearing pink and reminding us that breast cancer exists.

 

These other causes that, apparently aren't doing as good a job as them may be simply focusing too much of their time and resources on actually trying to fix the problems they're allegedly there to fix.

[Bronco Billy]

That all depends. If the job well done is actually hiring a ton of people to raise money and perpetuate their image, one might be a little disappointed with how much actually goes to finding a cure. That is, unless you're satisfied with simply getting everyone wearing pink and reminding us that breast cancer exists.

 

 

Can you please cite the stats, since you seem to be so passionately against them?

[detlef]

Can you please cite the stats, since you seem to be so passionately against them?

 

Here you go They're actually not as bad as some, but that appears to be because there are some that are no better than the scam artists who call up on behalf of the cops to sell you those stickers to put on the back of your car. None the less, being 15th out of 26, I believe, qualifies as "less than enviable" which is the phrase I used to describe them in this regard. And, it should be noted that their rating is as high as it is, not because they're all that good about how they spend their donated money, but that they're upfront in terms of not lying about it.

 

So, there's 3 ways where I think the generosity and good will of people is betrayed by a group like this:

1) Actually suing other charities for using "their" slogan. Especially when that slogan is something as common and simple as "for the cure". That would be right up there with Chick Fil A suing over "Eat more <blank>" were it not for the fact that CFA is an actual business who doesn't pretend to be otherwise, so I cut them a bit more slack for protecting their turf.

 

2) Getting political out of the blue. Getting pissed about this has less to do with my particular stance on pro-choice but more to do with what I feel a charities obligation is to those who give them money. If Komen wanted to be a pro-life group that fought breast cancer, that should have been out there front and center. Again, one need look no further than the very broad outrage of people who'd previously given money to see that was dirty pool.

 

3) Becoming a money making machine (and spending lots of money to do so). Now, this is something that many charities, not just Komen, fail us on. Not that there's anything wrong with people making a good living doing good, but I do find it laughable that many here are equating "doing a better job" with getting a ton of exposure. When, in fact, getting much of that exposure almost certainly comes at the expense of "doing a better job" of fighting the disease that they're supposedly here to fight.

[Bronco Billy]

Maybe det isn't around. ETA - posting this while det posted his position.

 

I'll put forth some numbers from a rueters article, titled:

 

"Insight: Komen charity under microscope for funding, science"

 

 

It's a reuters hit piece that starts out like this:

 

 

While the absolute dollar amount of those grants has steadily grown, it has not kept pace with the surge in donations Komen has received, a Reuters analysis of the group's financial statements shows.

 

Komen has come under heavy public scrutiny since it moved last week to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, a women's health network that provides birth control, abortions and other services. Although it reversed that decision on Friday, the outcry has prompted a closer look from activists, media and lawmakers at how the charity powerhouse operates.

 

Critics within the philanthropic and research communities in particular have raised questions over its scientific approach to some issues and how it spends the money it raises.

 

Komen's financial statements since 2003 reveal how much the group known for its pink ribbon symbol spends on activities from research to education, screenings, treatment and fund-raising.

 

In 2011, the foundation spent 15 percent, or $63 million, of its donations on research awards that fund studies on everything from hard-core molecular biology to the quality of breast-cancer care for Medicaid patients.

 

That proportion was down from 17 percent in 2009 and 2010. In 2008, that percentage reached 29 percent of donations. The annual financial statements cover April 1 through March 31.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

However, the article eventually succumbs to honesty about halfway through the piece (unlike many national media sources, including some of those you cite):

 

 

Still, in categories like administration and overhead Komen wins plaudits from outside experts. Charity Navigator, an independent nonprofit that scrutinizes such groups' finances, awards it four out of four stars, and 65.55 out of 70 points for financial performance.

 

That reflects the relatively small amount Komen reports spending on administration and fundraising (18 percent of donations) and its accountability and transparency. Komen issues audited financial statements, for instance, and has policies on conflicts of interest and whistleblowing.

 

By comparison, the American Cancer Society (ACS) gets three stars and a score of 53.85. The Wishing Well Foundation, which fulfills requests from terminally ill children, gets zero stars and 4.8.

 

Komen also shines for what it pays founder and CEO Nancy Brinker: $417,712 in 2011. That is almost $300,000 less than the Breast Cancer Research Foundation reported in salary and benefits for its president last year. Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood's president, received $354,716 in the fiscal year ending in June 2010.

 

In absolute terms, Komen is a leader in funding breast cancer research among private organizations. The $63 million it granted in 2011 pales beside the estimated $763 million spent by the National Institutes of Health in 2011 and the $150 million budgeted by the Department of Defense in 2012.

 

But it dwarfs the $17 million awarded by ACS for breast cancer research in 2010. In percentage terms, ACS spent 16 percent of donations on all cancer research, largely because much of its focus is "patient support," which includes providing transportation and housing for people undergoing treatment for cancer. It reported much higher fund-raising and administration costs than Komen, accounting for 30 percent of donations.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[injendsm]

good cause? maybe so but it's overkill. are they going to do it for what seems like half the season like they did last year? good grief, couldn't they just do one week.

 

I guess the thing about it that bugs me a little bit is that there are a lot of other kinds of cancer out there that don't receive nearly the amount of funding or attention. prostate cancer is the easy one to bring up, because it impacts about as many men as breast cancer affects women and receives zero attention. but lung cancer kills like 5 times as many people as breast cancer, and receives a fraction of the funding (especially on a per death basis).

 

 

Agreed. I've lost family to both breast and lung cancer and it's always seemed odd to me that only the former receives any sort of awareness. There needs to be an overall cancer awareness month, if there isn't already, with time taken to focus on each type rather than a month dedicated to a single type.

[detlef]

Charity Navigator, an independent nonprofit that scrutinizes such groups' finances, awards it four out of four stars, and 65.55 out of 70 points for financial performance.

 

 

 

Says here 3 stars From the exact group, Charity Navigator, cited in your article. And, again, it appears that those 3 stars are basically a result of averaging their 2 of 4 for how they actually spend their money with their 4 of 4 for at least not lying about it.

[Bronco Billy]

2) Getting political out of the blue. Getting pissed about this has less to do with my particular stance on pro-choice but more to do with what I feel a charities obligation is to those who give them money. If Komen wanted to be a pro-life group that fought breast cancer, that should have been out there front and center. Again, one need look no further than the very broad outrage of people who'd previously given money to see that was dirty pool.

 

 

 

Does your outrage for failure to blatantly disclose information also apply to Planned Parenthood, which uses taxpayer funds to provide abortions, to which a significant number of people object, many on religious grounds? I'd guess not... (FWIW, I do not have a dog in the abortion fight and have a middle-of-the-road stance).

[detlef]

OK, time for a bit of a mea culpa. I stand by my statements on Komen. However, one thing I did certainly get wrong is that the NFL is not actually pairing up with Komen, but rather the American Cancer Society. A group pointed out in BB's post is actually less efficient than Komen. Who "does an even better job" of spending a ton of money raising money than other, lamer cancer groups that spoil sports in this thread would prefer to see get some love.

[Bronco Billy]

Says here 3 stars From the exact group, Charity Navigator, cited in your article. And, again, it appears that those 3 stars are basically a result of averaging their 2 of 4 for how they actually spend their money with their 4 of 4 for at least not lying about it.

 

 

I'd guess the ratings are probably a year apart, and your interpretation of the 3 of 4 may be your interpretation (I see a graphic representation that shows them well into 3 of 4 territory rather than hovering on the edge of the criteria), but the amount spent on administation and fundraising is still relatively smaller than some comparable organizations even though it went up, as opposed to research, education, etc where it still dedicated over 75% of all revenues.

 

Not sure why you're so adamantly opposed to this. That's a substantial amount of capital going to help fight cancer and educate people. Something tells me you're being less than fully candid about your political leanings affecting your position, especially with the earlier source you cited and some of the content of your posts.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

Does your outrage for failure to blatantly disclose information also apply to Planned Parenthood, which uses taxpayer funds to provide abortions, to which a significant number of people object, many on religious grounds? I'd guess not... (FWIW, I do not have a dog in the abortion fight and have a middle-of-the-road stance).

 

They don't. They take public money and also perform abortions. Everyone knows this. The anti-choice faction equates this as spending money on abortions so they can try to cut all funding for a group that performs tons of needed health services and also happens to perform what is currently a legal procedure that some object to. But only 3% of their services are abortions and no public money goes there.

 

However, for some time now, PP's books have been quite scrutinized to make sure that they have adequate private dollars to cover abortions.

[Bronco Billy]

They don't. They take public money and also perform abortions. Everyone knows this. The anti-choice faction equates this as spending money on abortions so they can try to cut all funding for a group that performs tons of needed health services and also happens to perform what is currently a legal procedure that some object to. But only 3% of their services are abortions and no public money goes there.

 

However, for some time now, PP's books have been quite scrutinized to make sure that they have adequate private dollars to cover abortions.

 

 

So your retort is that even without public funding they'd still be providing abortions, therefore they as an overt advocate and provider for abortions should get taxpayer money?

[Chavez]

 

 

Does your outrage for failure to blatantly disclose information also apply to Planned Parenthood, which uses taxpayer funds to provide abortions, to which a significant number of people object, many on religious grounds? I'd guess not... (FWIW, I do not have a dog in the abortion fight and have a middle-of-the-road stance).

 

 

 

What, people don't want their $$$ going to PP's abortionplex?

 

 

FYI, the whole "I object to state-funded abortions" is kind of a "well, I objected to the war in Iraq" - if I can get out of paying for the one, I'll allow you to get out of paying for the other.

[detlef]

I'd guess the ratings are probably a year apart, and your interpretation of the 3 of 4 may be your interpretation (I see a graphic representation that shows them well into 3 of 4 territory rather than hovering on the edge of the criteria), but the amount spent on administation and fundraising is still relatively smaller than some comparable organizations even though it went up, as opposed to research, education, etc where it still dedicated over 75% of all revenues.

 

Not sure why you're so adamantly opposed to this. That's a substantial amount of capital going to help fight cancer and educate people. Something tells me you're being less than fully candid about your political leanings affecting your position, especially with the earlier source you cited and some of the content of your posts.

 

Kindly notice that their less than enviable ranking was 3rd in my bullet point this morning and that I also qualified it as saying that they're certainly not alone in that regard. To be honest, I'm only making a big deal out of that because people seem hell-bent on equating spending a bunch of money to raise money with "doing a better job".

 

As far as "my interpretation"? Dude, look at the little stars. They get 2 for how they spend it and 4 for being open about it. How is it "my interpretation" that their 3 star rating is as high as it is, not because of how they spend their money but that they at least don't cover it up? Humor me here. Explain how any rational person could look at that and not draw the same conclusion.

 

Look at where they rank. They're in the bottom half of their peer group (both in breast cancer and all cancer funds on that ranking site). I never said they were the worst, so bringing up others that are doesn't discount my assertion that they're "less than enviable". And middle of the pack, worst than more than half seems like a logical criteria for "less than enviable". Also, as far as being "well into the 3 of 4 territory". Among the breast cancer groups that have 3 stars, Komen is ranked the lowest. So, they're certainly not "well into the 3 of 4" group by that criteria.

 

ETA: I am loving the fact that you're completely ignoring the bit about them suing other cancer groups over "for the cure". That's not a "oh by the way", that's completely putting the cart before the horse and making it clear to everyone that your brand means more than your cause. How does that make it out of whatever meeting it was brought up in? I mean, I get some overzealous lawyer working for them would bring it up. But nobody said, "Hold up, we're going to sue someone for having a bake sale to raise money against cancer? Seriously, that's what we're talking about right now?" That's the group that you're so doggedly defending?

Edited October 8, 2012 by detlef

[detlef]

So your retort is that even without public funding they'd still be providing abortions, therefore they as an overt advocate and provider for abortions should get taxpayer money?

 

Well, if you didn't misfire so badly on your gotcha attempt, my answer would have been different. But since you gave me such a softball, I hit it. And, no, that's not my retort, that's just what you need it to be to salvage your pathetic line of reason.

 

Now, to the real reason why your comparison is stupid. Note that I specifically said that, regardless of your stance on abortion, that it was dirty pool for Komen to up and go the way they did, thereby betraying many people who gave money not thinking they'd be denying PP any scratch.

 

Are PP's abortion services something they just added to the menu after they'd gotten everyone all behind them for doing cancer screenings and the like? Or have they been associated with them for some time. Would it come out of left field to anyone who gives them money that they do abortions?

Edited October 8, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

So "we" are going to rip the NFL and the Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign because they(BC) are doing what they can to get as much exposure as possible for their organization/cause by creating a partnership with an organization(NFL) that has a massive following...do I think that other organizations deserve more exposure? Sure I do, but don't blame the Susan G. Komen Organization because some other cause/organization hasn't been as good at PR(Puddy nailed it) as they have been.

 

 

Then again, maybe I am biased since my MIL, who after having been BC free for 10 years just had to have mastectomy surgery...and I lost my grandmother to lung cancer but I sure as hel1 am not mad at the NFL for not having a lung cancer month...the American Cancer Society is my charity of choice, but I never ran a promotion with them when I owned my business...but the Susan G. Komen organization approached me for an event and I helped with their cause.

 

If you guys want prostate cancer, lung cancer or whatever to get more exposure may I suggest you get involved with that organization and do what you can to get them to be more proactive in getting added exposure for their cause.

 

 

Nah, its easier to rant on a message because the NFL is pussifying the sport by this partnership that has players wearing pink accessories. But it would be ok if the cheerleaders were topless and "examined" each other.

 

I cannot believe how some people will find something to complain about even with things like this.

[detlef]

 

Nah, its easier to rant on a message because the NFL is pussifying the sport by this partnership that has players wearing pink accessories. But it would be ok if the cheerleaders were topless and "examined" each other.

 

I cannot believe how some people will find something to complain about even with things like this.

 

Another proud graduate Bronco's "How to pretend that people are making arguments they aren't" program.

[Bronco Billy]

Another proud graduate Bronco's "How to pretend that people are making arguments they aren't" program.

 

 

 

Says the master.

[cdrudge]

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

This is why I much rather have a month of pink in October then a month of brown for prostate cancer awareness in November. The number and type of promotional activities in October is much more appealing.

[stevegrab]

Another proud graduate Bronco's "How to pretend that people are making arguments they aren't" program.

 

 

No, just an observation that the reasons some are giving (yourself excluded) seem like nonsense. There are other more deserving causes isn't a reason for this NOT to be done. As Swammi said, if people feel those other causes are more worthwhile do something. That that takes time and effort, so its easier to just bitch about it. Do you think most of these guys complaining here would care if the cause was prostrate or testicular cancer. Or if the color wasn't pink and so obvious against the contrast of uniforms that don't have such a color.

 

I'm just tired of people complaining about things like this. Even you went off on your rants ripping it because of Komen, when in fact this isn't tied to that organization (but ACS), which you actually tried to make into a negative when you realized it by pointint out that ACS isn't even as good at Komen in using their donations.

 

People here have accused me of being negative and having a stick up my ass, seems to be I have a lot of company.