Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Louie Baur
20261 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
THIS is why I don't believe in Charities. When they aren't PACs for some politics, they are slush funds, and then if you are LUCKY, they are just rip-offs.
About the only one I know of that actually makes a difference, and applies MOST of the money given is Habitat for Humanity (started by Jimmy Carter). The exception that defines the rule.
Those who like to preach about he merits of the uber Wealthy, always talk about Charities and the Patronage as reasons why we need uber Wealthy. No Charity is going to bring anyone a cure.
Only health systems who take the profit out of unending treatment and pills is going to produce CURES for systemic problems like Cancer. America's lifestyle is the #1 producer of Cancer -- and there is not going to be a cure for that by jogging in pink.
>> My wife by the way, has recovered from Breast Cancer and we walked in the Pink shirts and the whole nine yards. As usual, I just kept my mouth shut because nobody wants to hear that the Emperor has no clothes. It's nice enough to develop camaraderie and good community -- so for that measure, they do something good. But in exchange, they are parasites that sponge off of the good intentions of others.
Graf_OrlockFeb 6, 2012
I hate myself for doing this, but dugg for being spot on.
sleestakslayerFeb 6, 2012
Wow. Very sobering statement. Everyone, especially the leadership of these organizations should hear and reflect on this cogent statement.
drmangrumFeb 6, 2012
Don't lump all charities into the same bucket. There are some that do a lot of good with the money they have: Red Cross, charities for battered women's shelters, etc.
Yes, there are lots of charities that are nothing more than money laundering under the non-profit/charity label, but there's a lot of good out there too.
superkendallFeb 6, 2012
Environmentally, the Nature Conservancy is a very good non-profit, much better than the Sierra Club or other supposedly "green" organizations.
rebulatorFeb 6, 2012
I've known about the discrepancy between the "awareness fund" and the actual cancer prevention fund for a while. While I'm pro-life myself, but that is irrelevant to my distaste for them. More cancer research money, fewer pink wrist bands etc.
braininaboxFeb 6, 2012
If this is true, it is absolutely despicable.
Capitalizing on people who have a sensitive spot in their hearts for loved ones they lost (or very nearly lost).
I would expect this sort of thing out of Pat Robertson.
eraptorFeb 6, 2012
Karen Handel and Ari Fleischer appear to have harmed this organization FAR more than even they know.
It's a tragic shame, but maybe something good will come of it if the Komen Foundation learns from it's mistakes, cleans up it's act and fires all of the weasels in it's midst.
Those eye-popping salaries and radical ideologues should be one of the first targets for elimination. Otherwise, hard-pressed Americans will have a hard time justifying their contributions in the future.
People have always supported the Komen Foundation to eliminate breast cancer, NOT to overinflate nonprofit executives' wallets.
batfishyFeb 7, 2012
I've given to Komen for years but never, ever again. I had breast cancer at a very young age and so I've donated for years.
Fortunately, there are many other organizations that will take my donations and NOT take any political position.
One thing I know for certain - I will look into the politics of any of the key directors in any organization that gets my money.
anomaly100Feb 5, 2012
I'm sure their dealings will be looked into further since they decided to bring attention to themselves.
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
I absolutely am going to love every minute of the scrutiny, they brought upon themselves by ruining what was originally a good cause.
charlotte_webFeb 6, 2012
The other side of this coin is that other groups that were considering donating to Planned Parenthood will think twice, seeing what a PR nightmare it was for Komen to remove funding. Donating to PP incurs HEAVY political strings.
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
I think you've got that wrong. Pulling funding for political reasons from an organization the helps women with their health and well-being - that incurs heavy political backlash.
charlotte_webFeb 6, 2012
Why should it incur any backlash at all? Komen should be able to redirect their own money as they see fit.
There are thousands of non-PP clinic across the country that they could contribute to, that actually ARE doing mammograms.
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
Komen is free to do what it pleases with its donations.
However, we also live in a society where people are free to flood the internets with their concerns regarding Komen's actions as a charity acting in the public sphere, and to boycott that charity or call its decision into question publicly, if that decision raises ethical concerns.
Komen can still do whatever it likes. Apparently, this action created some concern as to its political motivations. Hence this entire thread and story.
batfishyFeb 7, 2012
Charlotte -
Women in Waco without insurance -
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppwaco/files/Central-Texas/102211_Waco_Trib_guest_Breast_Cancer_Awareness.pdf
Orange County (of all places!) -
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/planned-339081-parenthood-breast.html
You put your faith in such unreliable sources whoever they may be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webFeb 7, 2012
There are a few PP clinics doing mammograms, I conceed; but by and large, they are not doing them. It was one of the reasons Komen was withdrawing funds.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/after-lying-about-providing-mammograms-planned-parenthood-outraged-breast-cancer-charity-cuts-grants_620875.html
When Media Matters tried to refute that evidence, even they could only find a couple of PP clinics doing mammograms.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
good thing we dont point that scrutiny at planned parenthood
would not want to dig into that eugenic, racist org now would we.
anomaly100Feb 6, 2012
They received $3 million within 24 hours of this decision so I doubt that very much.
debasisgFeb 6, 2012
Komen appears to be a highly political elite group. It might have better intentions at one point, but right now, people should find alternatives to donate.
akronFeb 6, 2012
I have found an alternative: Planned Parenthood of America.
davidnivenFeb 6, 2012
Yay! Killing babies is fun for the whole family. And if you can't kill them yourselves, why not donate $$$ to help others do it?
geejayeFeb 6, 2012
Yay! Avoiding babies through contraceptives that are affordable helps the whole family. And if you can avoid abortion though affordable contraceptives and advice, why not donate $$$ to Planned Parenthood to help others do it?
davidnivenFeb 7, 2012
If all Planned Parenthood did was contraceptives, then I might agree with you and donate.
But, it's the abortion business that seals the deal and makes Planned Parenthood a great evil.
geejayeFeb 7, 2012
You do know that abortion is 3% of its services - not 90% as some politicians might tell you...
And - abortion is legal.
davidnivenFeb 7, 2012
Slavery was only 3% of all commerce in the South and not the cause of the entire Civil War (the 10th Amendment violations were).
And slavery was legal.
See? I can justify evil with the best of them too.
kingnovaFeb 6, 2012
Abortion has resulted in less violent crime in our society. Innocent people have avoided being killed by the teenage/adults that would have been unwanted, angry violent people.
Why do you feel the lives of innocent people are less valuable than a woman's choice to not have an unwanted, unloved fetus come to term?
tyhoFeb 6, 2012
Wow that's a long way to go to make an idiotic assumption.
If everyone that wanted an abortion but couldn't have one, ended up hating their own child, America would have much worse problems than killing the unborn.
The truth is, people love their children, even if they were unplanned. All life is worth protecting, with the exception of most premeditated murderers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaFeb 6, 2012
There are perfectly valid factual statistic linking abortion to lower violent crime. Just because you don't like to think about that fact, and innocent people being murdered by children that would have been aborted, does change the statistical facts.
"The truth is, people love their children, even if they were unplanned. "
The truth is SOME love their children, even unplanned. Many do not. Your generalization (again) doesn't change statistical facts.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
and this is why Sanger wanted to kill the brown skin babies...
she knew just like you do nova,
sure many minorities love their kids but statistically many do not.
thats why we need to step it up a notch and really carry through with her plans.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
and a whole bunch of dead brown babies
just like Ms Sanger wanted. oh she wanted lots of other dead babies, Probably hippies and other unwanteds but mostly she started PP to get rid of the Browns.
she would be so proud of the eugenics work the PP is doing in her footsteps today...
so proud and "progressive"
kingnovaFeb 6, 2012
Abortion has resulted in less violent crime in our society. Innocent people have avoided being killed by the teenage/adults that would have been unwanted, angry violent people.
Why do you feel the lives of innocent people are less valuable than a woman's choice to not have an unwanted, unloved fetus come to term?
tyhoFeb 6, 2012
"There are perfectly valid factual statistic linking abortion to lower violent crime."
OK show me.
batfishyFeb 7, 2012
You can google it but from what I know, there are some theories supporting the fact that crime dropped in the early 90's at least partly due to Roe v Wade.
It does make some sense.
geejayeFeb 6, 2012
You know, "breast cancer rates have risen since 1940 from one in 22 women to one in eight, yet very little research has been done to find what environmental or dietary factors may have led to increased cancer rates. "
Meanwhile, their (Komen's) sponsors are "Yoplait, whose pink-ribbon-labeled yogurt contained milk laced with bovine growth hormone; and Estee Lauder, which was selling cosmetics that may also have contained carcinogens." http://news.moviefone.com/2012/02/03/pink-ribbons-breast-cancer-movie_n_1252824.html?ref=moviefone
Having "the cure" through pharmaceuticals would be nice. However, having an organization that will cut though America's corporate BS and actually stop the creation of products that give us cancer in the first place would be "the miracle".
Even I would run for that.
shark72Feb 6, 2012
Komen jumped the shark for me last year when they did the promotion with Kentucky Fried Chicken. Seriously:
http://selfishgiving.com/causerants/komens-cause-marketing-program-isnt-fingerlickin-good
Support cancer awareness by buying.... fried chicken? Yes, guys, I GET IT: chicken breast, breast cancer. Ha ha. But it would be better to team with a purveyor of food that's at least somewhat good for you.
stevanoskiFeb 6, 2012
KFC probably gives you breast cancer.
roywrFeb 6, 2012
How many other so-call non-profits are just like Komen. We need to tax these non-profits.
laurahoustonFeb 6, 2012
only 10 cents of every dollar from those race events, goes to cancer research?
On their website under their irs reports page, they claim a much higher end of tax year rate to research and screenings.
Those kind of events, races are costly to put on, but the entry fees and sales of logo items usually cover the costs. Local people are volunteers of their time and sponsors usually pay for overhead costs.
I don't think those races are intended to be money makers..the race events inform and educate people about breast cancer.
leogodin217Feb 6, 2012
Too funny, horrible charity supporting Planned Parenthood = great, love 'em. Horrible charity no longer supporting Planned Parenthood = horrible charity. Funny how politics changes everything, including public opinion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidnivenFeb 6, 2012
The Digg liberals weren't complaining about outrageous salaries, drug company ties, and blah, blah, blah when Komen let Planned Parenthood compete for grants.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeFeb 6, 2012
You are right. It wasn't until Komen made themselves very visible to us all that we stated scrutinizing their MO.
I suppose every cloud has a silver lining...
barackalypseFeb 6, 2012
I may just have to start supporting them now that they've gone and poked the hornets nest of angry liberals by daring to withdraw their support of an organization that performs abortions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaFeb 6, 2012
By daring to stop supporting breast cancer screenings.
Your clueless-ness would be astounding, had I not seen many of your previous posts.
"They are ripping people off, but I'm going to support them because I don't like someone with an opinion that differs from mine!"
Spineless twit.
barackalypseFeb 6, 2012
I'd rather the money get spent on direct research towards a cure than education, screening, and care.
treehugger87Feb 6, 2012
You realize what you're saying, right? That you would rather people who could have been educated and screened sufficiently to catch cancer early enough to cure it simply get cancer and die while we wait for a cure.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 6, 2012
No, I'm saying I want the "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" organization to live up to its name and spend its funds looking for a cure. If I wanted to donate money for care I'd give to the Shriners.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
but but they stopped supporting killing babies and you know how important baby killing is to us "progressives". we will collectively and progressively crap ourselves if anything threatens the ability of anyone to kill babies...
even if the Komen's cured cancer they are still bad and evil until they go back to supporting more baby death.
/"progressive" off
stevanoskiFeb 6, 2012
Progressives mount dead babies on their walls as trophies to "choice." Talk about ghouls.
iprintallFeb 6, 2012
Ever consider "finding" the cure is more important to these people than the actual cure?