dexaline: mentula: good, they shouldn't accept money generated by a cheap patronizing stuntRight. Because cancer cares a lot about the moral high ground.
Cpl.D: This is because the Susan G Komer's foundation's focus is not breast cancer research. It is politics. Breast cancer research is merely the vehicle they use to bring politics into play. This is what makes them particularly despicable in my opinion.
xen0blue: bulldg4life: xen0blue: he said it was entirely a non-political event until the media decided to interpret it as suchThey brought in a far right-wing conservative that failed in a bid to become Georgia's governor. The person had already made an effort to defund PP through the political process and was a very outspoken critic of abortion.The idea of creating ridiculous rules about organizations under investigation (PP being the victim of a congressional witch hunt) was purely political. And, during this time, they continued to support PSU despite the federal investigations. It was 100% political. It was an "abortion is evil" crusade led by Karen Handel.Of course, if Susan G. Komen hired a devout anti-abortion activist as their senior vice-president of public policy and didn't expect her to make up a bullshiat reason to stop funding Planned Parenthood, then maybe they are stupider than I thought.Yes, they did hire a conservative for president but she had nothing to do with defunding planned parenthood. There was a rule they put on the books to temporarily defund any organization under investigation by the government, and PP just happened to be one of them. The president was an oh-so-convenient scapegoat.But you obviously know more than someone who worked there.
Howie Spankowitz: Fear_and_Loathing: Howie Spankowitz: I tell charities all the time that there is such a thing as "bad" money.I worked for non-profits for 30 years. Unfortunately, most don't understand the concept of bad money and also mistakenly believe there is free money. I have lots of stories, but none of them are "CSB". Sadly.Exactly. Especially when you decide to accept corporate money. Corporations don't do philanthropy. They'll use the language of philanthropy, but what they do is marketing, and if you accept their money, you better know how to negotiate a gift agreement and understand the value of your charity's brand or the relationship will be imbalanced and...well, let's just say I could tell you some horror stories.
Howie Spankowitz: Charities aren't obligated
Howie Spankowitz: CSB time: When I was with the United Way, a wealthy gentleman offered us the largest individual gift we'd ever had, with one major restriction: we had to ensure that not a single dime was used to provide any services to illegal immigrants. We could have rationalized a way to fund things that were less likely to serve illegal immigrants, but it would have set a horrible precedent.
E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: Yes, 34D is considered tiny these days. You're right.will you have be my babies mommy?
snocone: Money is fungible, you santctimonious asshats.Unlike boobies.
thisiszombocom: / and why do we all hate komen?// honest question
germ78: You know, there are many other breast cancer awareness charities than SGK:FTC.../wish they would cure cancer already, so cancer cure charities could go the way of the dinosaur
jehovahs witness protection: Oh, and I am feeling better this week.
jehovahs witness protection: JesusJuice: Honest Bender: How about we just donate to regular cancer research? I think we can stop the multimillion dollar, paint everything pink, breast cancer "awareness" campaigns. We're all aware of it by now. Breast cancer is a thing. Can we stop treating it like it's the special snowflake of cancer?A man is more likely to die from prostate cancer than a woman is from breast cancer, yet we have an entire month where I have to painstakingly avoid buying pink shiat because "OMG SAVE TEH TITTEHS".Unfortunately you are 100% correct. My last two treatments made me feel so bad, I didn't even open the laptop for several days..
FirstNationalBastard: Let's put it this way.... this is how bad the Komen stuff has become
FunkOut: get your ass to the doctor pronto
FunkOut: They nee to publicise "signs you might have bowel/ovary/prostate cancer, get your ass to the doctor pronto" more.
MoronLessOff: Jon iz teh kewl: what the hell does pink lemonade have to do with breasts[t0.gstatic.com image 160x174]Melonade.
PallMall: Susan G Komen Quick Stats (2010 IRS Form 990 - Filed 2011)Gross Receipts: $258,876,878Governing Members: 9Independent Voting Members: 7Employees: 280Volunteers: 11,823RevenueContributions and Grants: $174,658,160Program Service Revenue: $34,417,471Other Revenue: ($6,491,760)ExpensesPublic Awareness of a pink ribbon: $71,129,117Grants to other "charitable organizations" (aka, other chapters, buddies, etc): $75,926,099Health Treatment Grants: $9,142,812Salaries, compensation, employee benefits: $22,675,770 (280 employees)Did you lobby: YESSo, out of $250 mil, they paid out $9 million to actually treat breast cancer... which was actually to another organization who did the work.They've got enough money, I'm not supporting them for shiat.
robohobo: Even worse if you're the oh, so evil white male.
FunkOut: Of course, there's no such thing as medium tits, C cup and under are apparently considered a small niche market for men who are gay and/or secretly pedos. Or maybe it's D cup and under now that's considered small, I'm not up on the latest trends of breast size criticisms.
Zon: Well, to be fair, it's likely actually about $22 out of $260 million, on modest assumptions and fuzzy math*. Still, that's pretty terrible, at ~8.4% efficiency.*The math gets wonky because the indirect treatment expenditures through intra-organizational donations. Komen spent $9 of $180 million directly (5%), but some portion of $76m (which is 42% of the $180m) indirectly on treatment [or other legitimate aim, such as research]. We might assume those organizations are equally (in)efficient, but on that assumption there are substantial doubly-indirect treatment expenditures, and so on. Doing an infinite sum would be silly, given the assumptions and vagueness involved (let alone the possibility of intra-organizational donation loops). So, just the first few iterations:$9m directly$3.8m indirectly (5% of $76m)$1.6m doubly-indirectly (42% of $76m is $32m, and 5% of that is $1.6m)$.65m triply-indirectly (42% of $32m is $13m, and 5% of that is $.65m)Since these are rough anyway, let's just call it $15m out of that $180m. That's 8.33% efficiency. They still have $80m unspent (well, presumably that's why their expenditures are $80m less than their revenue), and if applied at the same ratio would yield ...
Zon: PallMall: Susan G Komen Quick Stats (2010 IRS Form 990 - Filed 2011)......
Zon: Zon: PallMall: Susan G Komen Quick Stats (2010 IRS Form 990 - Filed 2011)......I should also note, it is somewhat doubtful that the organizations Komen donates to are equally bad. I don't care enough to research further (since I won't donate to them anyway), but some of those charitable organizations you characterize as "other chapters, buddies, etc" might be legitimate, for all I know. In particular, do you know if any of them conduct medical research themselves?
NewportBarGuy: Pornhub.com to donate 1 cent for every 30 views of videos in "Big Tits" and "Small Tits" caregories.That could be several billion dollars!
PallMall: Zon: Zon: PallMall: Susan G Komen Quick Stats (2010 IRS Form 990 - Filed 2011)......I should also note, it is somewhat doubtful that the organizations Komen donates to are equally bad. I don't care enough to research further (since I won't donate to them anyway), but some of those charitable organizations you characterize as "other chapters, buddies, etc" might be legitimate, for all I know. In particular, do you know if any of them conduct medical research themselves?Unfortunately, "Charities" like the Komen Foundation aren't required to report every details of their business. The 990 is the only info you can really get without digging to hard.You're obviously some sort of shill for them, because you'll spend so much time going through details, then defend them from multiple angles.Just like most other large charities.. the original focus is lost once the money starts coming in.Now, fark off.
Zon: LOLWUT?My "defense" of them was merely pointing out that they aren't quite as terrible as you said they were (at 8.4% rather than 3.5% efficiency), and indicating some relevant uncertainties. I don't understand how you extrapolate that I'm some kind of shill out of that, especially when I explicitly said 1) that the 8.4% efficiency is still terrible, and 2) that I won't donate to them.I guess we just differ in that I prefer my opinions to be based on reality.
PallMall: Zon: LOLWUT?My "defense" of them was merely pointing out that they aren't quite as terrible as you said they were (at 8.4% rather than 3.5% efficiency), and indicating some relevant uncertainties. I don't understand how you extrapolate that I'm some kind of shill out of that, especially when I explicitly said 1) that the 8.4% efficiency is still terrible, and 2) that I won't donate to them.I guess we just differ in that I prefer my opinions to be based on reality.So Jeff Dahmer isn't quite as terrible as I saw because he only killed 17 before he got caught instead of 20.Bad is bad... Komen is a shiat company extorting the public will to aid those in need.Don't be a knave.
Vodka Zombie: Of course they won't. Haven't we learned that Komen is kind of the Phelps Family of breast cancer? They just exist to sue people and be political trolls.
Elzar: Donating to breast cancer research is admirable, but methinks this is just a publicity stunt for pornhub. I'll wait for them to donate to animal shelters for all the kittens that go missing everyday./ also tubegalore/tubestack are much better porn aggregators
FreetardoRivera: Howie Spankowitz: I can't stand Komen, but as a nonprofit professional for the past 25 years, I can tell you it's not asinine at all that they wouldn't accept this donation. Charities aren't obligated to accept money that doesn't come from sources aligned with their values or that might attach their brand to things that their other supporters might find unsavory. I tell charities all the time that there is such a thing as "bad" money.CSB time: When I was with the United Way, a wealthy gentleman offered us the largest individual gift we'd ever had, with one major restriction: we had to ensure that not a single dime was used to provide any services to illegal immigrants. We could have rationalized a way to fund things that were less likely to serve illegal immigrants, but it would have set a horrible precedent. Wee turned it down. "Bad" money./end CSBOne of these things is not like the others,One of these things just doesn't belong,Can you tell which thing is not like the othersBy the time I finish my song?
Willas Tyrell: (snip)Respectfully,(snip) ...
save russian jews: tits are connected to farking PEOPLE. superficial bullshiat like "save the ta-tas" is what leads to misogynistic shiat like this, where we grieve so much for lost ~titties~ and the grief that causes us as men or what the fark ever.
If you like these links, you'll love
Come for the Total, stay for the Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 24 2017 11:13:47
Runtime: 0.348 sec (347 ms)