Post: #1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/h...tid=pm_pop

Quote:The Susan G. Komen foundation canceled its signature 3-Day walk in Washington and six other cities next year, slashing the number of the fundraising events by half, as participation continues to drop more than a year after a funding controversy involving Planned Parenthood.

Komen called its decision to pull out of the event one that “was not made lightly, as this bold and empowering event has touched the lives of thousands of participants.”

Quote:Komen’s annual Race for the Cure in Washington took place a week later. It had fewer participants than in previous years — about 21,000 people, down from 27,000 last year and nearly 40,000 in 2011. The race raised $5 million in 2011, $2 million last year and about $1.5 million this year, although this year’s tally is not final.

The dip in fundraising forced Komen to tap its reserves last year to fund research and other grants, angering some affiliates, according to a source familiar with fundraising.

50% reduction in race participation. Yet the founder still gets a huge income:

Quote:While many of senior executives and board members have left, founder Brinker remains in place. Her $684,717 salary in fiscal 2012 continues to draw criticism.

Post: #2

Good. Most of these charities are total scams. I think every charity should be required by law to state up front what % of collected funds actually goes to fund research.

Post: #3

Although, the controversy that caused this was that they've recently cut some funding to Planned Parenthood because:

Quote:“As a breast cancer survivor, I was always troubled with this whole idea that the nation’s largest abortion provider was enmeshed in the breast cancer fight when they weren’t actually doing mammograms,” said the group’s president, Charmaine Yoest. “I look at this as smart stewardship.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/h...ml?hpid=z1

So basically a quite leftist organization is losing support because it offended an even more leftist organization.

Post: #4

I wonder what more deadly types of cancer like, prostate for example gets in high-profile endorsements.

Post: #5

Good. All of these morons want to wear a pink t-shirt and walk 10 miles to cure cancer.

How many of them are willing to man up, go to medical school, and devote their lives to a cure?

Post: #6

(06-05-2013 09:24 AM)not_dead_yet Wrote:  Good. All of these morons want to wear a pink t-shirt and walk 10 miles to cure cancer.

How many of them are willing to man up, go to medical school, and devote their lives to a cure?

Or even worse when the NFL decides to put pink on every possible thing during the month of October. They call it Breast Cancer "Awareness" Month and if you're apparently not aware of it how big of a rock have you been living under? If I wanted to do donate something I'll do it without needing my favorite team to don pink cleats and refs to blow on pink whistles.

Post: #7

Lord have mercy, what a bunch of self-indulgent bullshit.

Post: #8

If you need more evidence as to the charity's motives, look at its litigation record (which is still more money diverted away from the charity's ostensible goal). Apparently it has even sought to stop other breast cancer fundraising efforts from using the color pink.

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2011/01/05...litigious/

Post: #9

(06-05-2013 09:19 AM)Vicious Wrote:  I wonder what more deadly types of cancer like, prostate for example gets in high-profile endorsements.

If you compare actual cases and deaths in regards to cancer type vs its funding/charity breast cancer is at the very top. More deadly cancers don't even scratch the surface.

Thee charities are tanking because women can not be willed to help them sleeves. The bloated breast cancer charities (bbcc's) have. Even reaping in billions and completely infiltrating cultural institutions and have not made a dent regards to cancer research.

I suspect funding has been drying up post recession since well off men whom had daughters, mothers, or sisters affected donated windfall donations but since now have had to scale back.

Post: #10

Charities are a great scam. A lot of people think that the term "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" means that an organization has to abide by some kind of bare-bones spending agenda in order to donate as much as possible. Not even close. If you look at most of these so-called "charitable" organizations you will find them stuffed to the gills with highly paid "administrators" and "consultants". The idea is to bring in a ton of money through donations and then spend as much as possible on expenses, salaries, overhead, etc... Then they "donate" whatever is left over, and in many cases these donations involve kickbacks from the recipient or some other kind of tit-for-tat exchange.

And this is not even factoring in the way that the wealthy elite are able to abuse "charitable foundations". Rich guy can create a charity and donate a few hundred grand a year to it, for which he gets a huge tax write-off. Then he can have the charity employ his wife and children and pay them and salary. He can also use it for huge leverage in business deals, having the charity make donations or employ people as "consultants". There are a ton of ways to abuse charitable foundations. Why do you think the rich are so heavily involved in charity? It sure as fuck isn't because they have hearts of gold.

Post: #11

(06-05-2013 09:24 AM)not_dead_yet Wrote:  Good. All of these morons want to wear a pink t-shirt and walk 10 miles to cure cancer.

How many of them are willing to man up, go to medical school, and devote their lives to a cure?

That doesn't even make sense.

These "morons" run these races to fundraise for breast cancer and my sister did it last year and raised £500. Not a massive amount, but imagine how many other thousands of people are participating and pulling in similar or more donations. That makes a big difference.

But yeah, I suppose the 30+ year old women with no career aspirations, no university degrees and a lower intelligence than is required to get into a medical school can just "man up" at the drop of a hat and decide they have enough money and the right education to just go to any old medical school and go and find a cure.

I support these women racing, because they're motivated to go and do some exercise and it's worthwhile.

That said, I hate how breast cancer "awareness" is promoted in this country as way more lethal and important than any others. You don't see the same campaigns for testicular cancer, colon cancer, etc, when all are equally as important.

They're doing their bit though these women, and many of them have been affected directly or indirectly by breast cancer and feel more compelled to do something about it. Raising money for a good cause is hardly to be sniffed at. We all know average people, in particular women, find something much more worthy of their attention and promotion when they've been affected by it.

Post: #12

(06-05-2013 10:44 AM)scorpion Wrote:  Charities are a great scam. A lot of people think that the term "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" means that an organization has to abide by some kind of bare-bones spending agenda in order to donate as much as possible. Not even close. If you look at most of these so-called "charitable" organizations you will find them stuffed to the gills with highly paid "administrators" and "consultants". The idea is to bring in a ton of money through donations and then spend as much as possible on expenses, salaries, overhead, etc... Then they "donate" whatever is left over, and in many cases these donations involve kickbacks from the recipient or some other kind of tit-for-tat exchange.

And this is not even factoring in the way that the wealthy elite are able to abuse "charitable foundations". Rich guy can create a charity and donate a few hundred grand a year to it, for which he gets a huge tax write-off. Then he can have the charity employ his wife and children and pay them and salary. He can also use it for huge leverage in business deals, having the charity make donations or employ people as "consultants". There are a ton of ways to abuse charitable foundations. Why do you think the rich are so heavily involved in charity? It sure as fuck isn't because they have hearts of gold.

Yeah - this is something I have being thinking for the past few years. But it is hard to find any books by journalists looking into things from this point of view. I would be interested in any recommendations.

The thing that always struck me is this. You have a guy who goes to an elite school or elite university. He gets to know alot of people in the worlds of media, celebrity, politics and business. Take Eton school in the UK for example.

He then decides to set up a charity. Which can be any random pet project - let's say giving laptops to kids in Mozambique.

Well - he can then employ himself to run it (paying himself what he wants) and employ others as well.

And then tap up his rich friends for corporate donations and help with lavish fundraisers.

And once you have a few people doing this sort of thing - you can distance yourself from such neptotism by hiring the family of friends and vice versa.

And - on top of that - the government helps you along since you probably don't have to pay corporation taax like most other companies do.

The whole thing is ripe for abuse and strikes me as a simple way for the self-serving elites to help keep other employed in comfortable, fun (organising fundraising events) and well paid jobs. And then be seen by society as good and kind people for doing so.

A quick look on GOOGLE suggests there are 150,000 registered charities in the UK. This is in a country with an adult population of 51 million people.

And I can assure you that most of these charities were set up (and are run) by people who went to posh schools - and not your run down local comprehensive.

And each one of these charities becomes a self-perpetuating class in which the people looking out for each other can continue to do so. Over many generations.

I haven't had a chance to look into this yet. But I think there is alot of scope for some interesting investigative work in to what really goes on in the charity sector.

Of course my cynicism may be totally unfounded. But - I would be surprised if that is the case. But I am prepared to be shown otherwise.

As such - I would be interested to see what others think of my (and Scorpion's) take on things?

Post: #13

It's about time this happened. Various documentaries and other sources have pointed out Big Pink's singular, costly, and ultimately useless emphasis on "raising awareness" at the expense of real research and action. Furthermore, it's been pointed out that breast cancer isn't even the biggest killer of women. Not to mention the lack of attention to similar gender-specific ailments for men.

Post: #14

Yeah - raising awareness is bullshit. Research is what is needed. They focus on raising awareness because it is easier than approaching the medical community and trying to work with them. It takes a certain amount of knowledge and intelligence figuring out which research projects to fund.

Much easier just to spend the cash on posters, wristbands and leaflets instead. And such expenditure doubles up as further advertising for the organisation.

The same thing happened with Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation.

Just double-checked that last point on wikipedia and came across this article.

It looks interesting:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adv...l?page=all

Post: #15

Take a look at this article exposing charities: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/worst-c...?hpt=hp_c3

It sounds like you can register a charity and then get one of these fundraising operations to do all the heavy lifting. Even if you get a fraction of the money raised, it's a lot of cash. Morally reprehensible but apparently profitable. I just don't think I could do something like this, however.

Post: #16

Look forward to checking out the article. Thanks!

Here in the UK we have alot of 'chuggers' (charity muggers). They stop you in the street in front of shops, and try and get you to sign up for charities.

The people doing this are paid on commision.

I don't have the figures to hand - but it is quite inefficient hiring a 'chugger' to raise money for your charity. The money they raise is only a little more than the cost of paying somebody to stand on the street for 8 hours a day harrassing people.

The charities don't seem to mind since they make some money from it. And having people decked out in the charities logos acts as a kind of brand awareness exercise. But the amount that goes to the charities is a tiny percentage of the money donated. Since the costs of raising the money has to be accounted for as well.

The whole thing is fucked up.

It is capitalism at its worse. Where any incentive to chase a dollar is pursued even if it is illogical and counter to the whole point of the exercise in the first place.

Post: #17

Another reason why donations to charities should be taxed. Whenever people donate money, they feel good about themselves. It is a form of spending and the amount of abuse that goes on with money (don't even get me started with religious organizations and the tax exemptions they have) just adds another reason to tax.