A separate issue but the same tactic is happening here in Tennessee which I thought you folks should know about. Planned Parenthood won a Centers for Disease Control grant to perform HIV/STD testing, and Tennessee’s Republican-dominated legislature denied the organization its grant for political reasons:

http://southernbeale.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/planned-parenthood-fights-back/

The thing people need to remember with all of this nutwads is that it’s purely about destroying Planned Parenthood, the same way they went after ACORN. Only worse because ... baybeez and Jeebus and stuff.

Forgot to add, Planned Parenthood in Tennessee is suing the state as a result ... so they aren’t taking this sitting down.

Why does the head of a non-profit organization make nearly a half-million dollars? How the hell does one justify that? I seem to remember Elizabeth Dole running the American Red Cross for about $400,000 a year. That’s a lot of warm cots and cabbage soup during winter!

Really: Are these fuckers at the top THAT talented? Do they claim that a charity supporting a worthy cause can’t hire a retired CEO, dedicated to the cause, for maybe a modest $100,000, plus expenses?

Just saying, but bitching about the outrageous multi-million-dollar salaries of Wall Street pricks is one thing, but a money-grubbing shit stain running a tax-exempt “non-profit” charity needs a $400,000 salary? (And, trust me, non-profits I’ve been affiliated with get GREAT benefits.)

Working for a charity is a real-world job and shouldn’t demand a vow of poverty, but how the fuck does anyone with any P.R. savvy not be struck by the visuals of this tight-faced, Stepford Wife pulling in huge bucks while finding only 24-percent of donations to find the “cure?”

I suspect you’re right.  A lot of the effort expended by wingnuts is to ensure the wingnut tribe is kept pure.  Komen, since they have spent (however small a percent of their donations) some money to help people people other than themselves are suspect.  Plus there are Hollywood/San Francisco types in there too.  This marks them as untrustworthy over the long term (much like McCain and Romney), so while they are happy to embrace them now, that relationship is ultimately doomed.

(It reminds me of the way Mormons and Catholics are treated by the same sort of Reichwing nutjob: BFFs while it’s convenient — the money and manpower sure are tasty — but always suspect, never fully trusted, always watched for any sign of heresy…)

Once you climb on the tiger’s back, it’s hard to get back off without a great deal of harm coming your way…

I think the bigger fuckup for Komen beyond that was siding with professional women-haters.

There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy, or certainly a very good one, because the conservatives who freaked out about a tiny portion of the money going to PP to cover cancer prevention and diagnosis services hate anything to do with helping women live and are probably ready to bail with Komen as soon as “it pisses off liberals” fails to counter the fact that they are supporting something with “breasts” in the name (and they well know that breasts are sin bags from Satan that Real Americans don’t focus on, thank you very much) which has a lot of emasculating pink in it. The conservative pool they’re swimming in isn’t going to carry them very far at all.

And the other side of the coin was that the people willing to support them before and overlook things like “huh, where is all the money going” were willing to do so because they are passionate about women’s health and think women are full people who don’t deserve to die horribly. I.e. squishy liberal or leaning liberal types who were above all else pro-choice and pro-women’s health.

Even if they reverse this decision in the future, people who actually like women will remember that they were willing to throw women’s health under a bus to side with people who actively campaign to make women’s lives worse. And those who’d be willing to forgive that have been given a big reason to focus on the other aspects of Komen that make them a piss-poor charity (the PP uproar seems to have greatly expanded knowledge that they only manage to use around 20% of donations for the actual intended purpose).

I don’t think Komen realized how much of a suicidal move this was and I think this is because women’s health, pro-choice, and so on has been successfully buried in our culture. Not even “edgy” TV shows rated M or AO show a character decide to have an abortion and actually successfully go through with it, even though its one of the most performed surgical procedures in the country. Those who think contraception is “controversial” have managed to dominate the airwaves despite something around 90% of people supporting it. HPV vaccines have a public debate again despite it being a no brainer. And women have had to accept Komen as a necessary evil to support getting the word out on breast cancer otherwise it would slip into the memory hole and become “controversial” to treat as well.

So it was easy for Komen to believe the hype, that supporting women’s health and PP was in fact massively unpopular, rather than the reality which is when the public moralizing about sluts actually negatively impacts women in a big way, all the women who have been kept silent have a way of being so loud they are briefly heard in something akin to their actual numbers.

Working for a charity is a real-world job and shouldn’t demand a vow of poverty, but how the fuck does anyone with any P.R. savvy not be struck by the visuals of this tight-faced, Stepford Wife pulling in huge bucks while finding only 24-percent of donations to find the “cure?”
Comment #3: mass on 02/03 at 10:56 AM

In today’s world, 400K is a poverty CEO salary.  If PP’s 600K is .2 percent, her salary is .133 percent.  It has little to no effect on the amount spent on donations to fund the cure.

The problem is in allocation of funds outside of her salary, and the time and energy they have spent preventing cancer prevention (because it would anger their sponsors) and going after anyone using “for the cure” in their advertising.

And in the fact she’s a wingnut, always has been.  She apparently got a case of Gingrich fever and thought she and her policies were invincible.

Hahahahahaha! Great stuff. You really got me with the Campbell’s Soup!

In the calculus of this, one might have thought this was a way to bring reichwing groups into at least tacitly supporting something kinda sorta like women’s health.

But all it has done is alienate the people who really do care about women’s health.

I’m all for this destroying Komen. I’m betting about 90% of the money the raise goes to ‘awareness’ (big billboards, pink bracelets) and not to actually funding screening or research.

In reading through the Twitter traffic and the postings on Komen’s message board, I am shocked that the overwhelming majority of people who’re supporting the decision are male, on the scale of 80-90% male.  Having read through other blog entries here, I know that’s not a surprise to most of you, but I just would never have believed the misogyny is so incredibly pervasive as it appears to be in the social media world right now.  Just…wow.

And the other side of the coin was that the people willing to support them before and overlook things like “huh, where is all the money going” were willing to do so because they are passionate about women’s health and think women are full people who don’t deserve to die horribly. I.e. squishy liberal or leaning liberal types who were above all else pro-choice and pro-women’s health.

Yes. Liberal movements and organizations have a tough time of things, because we don’t get millions of dollars from the Koch Brothers, but we liberals know what the fuck we want, we care about it, and we fight for it.

Conservative ideology, by contrast, is essentially a string of ill-formed prejudices tied together by a series of uneducated rationalizations. The only people who can count on conservatives’ reliable, constant support are straight, cis, rich, white men. Anyone else who finds themselves in bed with conservatives needs to realize that they’re being played as disposable pawns.

If you fight for liberal values and liberal causes, liberals will stand with you. That’s why PP has been alive, in one form or another, for damn near 100 years, despite being bombarded on all sides by politically motivated twits. If Komen had thrown in their lot with them, Komen would find friends who aren’t going to abandon them when the next shiny controversy or talking point passes by.

Instead they threw their lot in with conservatives. And because they’re not fighting solely for the rights of straight, cis, rich, white men, they’re going to pay a hefty price for that.

In other words saying “Komen decided to side with the wingnuts” is backwards.  Komen was built by wingnuts.  It was baked-in.

Really: Are these fuckers at the top THAT talented?

They’re talented at being fuckers. That’s what got them where they are.

Whatever the salary is, the CEO has just shown that she wasn’t worth it since she destroyed the organization.  I don’t really have too big a problem with a large salary if they are able to bring in more money but its the opposite here, I mean, its over.  If this was a company that people owned stock in they would take their losses and move on.

Now that they’ve made the political decision to side with people whose main source of political knowledge is the archive of false e-mails at Snopes, there’s a larger and far more precarious issue: anti-choicers’ invariable tendency toward rubedom.

These things usually revolve around money, though.  So there’s either a pro-life Komen for the Jesus that is looking to poach donors or Komen believed the $600k it was doling out to PP was costing them more than that in donations from religious-right groups.

#6:

In today’s world, 400K is a poverty CEO salary.

Mark Zuckerberg paid himself $500k in salary in 2011.  Admittedly, Komen isn’t going to IPO for $100 billion.  But I wouldn’t call $400k poverty level, even for a CEO.

Also, FYI, Komen appears to be stepping back.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/komen-apologizes-for-recent-de.html

Although, we’ll see where this goes from here.

What I’d really like all news outlets to pick up is that while Komen says they arent granting money to PP because of an “investigation” they are still giving grants to Parkland hospital in Dallas even though it is under a real investigation due to serious health and safety violations.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20120124-safety-monitors-find-numerous-problems-at-parkland-hospital-officials-say.ece

http://www.dallasnews.com/investigations/patient-safety/headlines/20111015-parkland-in-dallas-has-been-among-texas-worst-hospitals-for-patient-safety-for-years-analysis-shows.ece

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/08/21/parkland-hospital-patients-told-of-hygiene-lapses/

gardenmom, they also give money to Penn State, although the Sandusky investigation is ongoing.

At this point I don’t buy it.

I’ve never trusted Komen thanks to their active opposition to funding research into the link between toxins and cancer.  It’s not just they choose not to donate money to that kind of research; they lobby Congress to kill any funding that comes up.  That’s some fierce dedication to their corporate sponsors, to waste their money on lobbying against something that doesn’t harm their cause.

But, now, apparently, Komen is run by Republicans and always has been.  They’ve never funded stem-cell research, and now they’ve expanded that to not funding research at institutions that use stem cells, even when the stem cells are used for non-cancer research.  They take an even harder stance than the Bush administration which allowed research from existing stem cell lines.

They also lobbied against health care reform, something that would do more to save women’s lives than anything Komen has done in the past 30 years.

The Susan Komen Foundation for the “Cure” is nothing more than the women’s health arm of the Republican Party.

Mass, Cecile Richards makes $400,000 a year as CEO of non profit planned parenthood as well.

Zifnab… I saw, and my immediate reaction was this:

Shorter Komen:

We realize now that we raised awareness on something we didn’t intend to raise awareness about. We are sorry if we have offended the money. Please do not stop sending the money.

The more I read about Komen, the less likely it seems that pressure to dump PP came from the outside. They’re standard Republican line all the way down, right down to the fighting efforts to study environmental toxins as a cause of breast cancer. Like all Republicans, they’ve gotten carried further to the crazy by the Tea Party and sucked into self-reinforcing loop of wingnuttia, so *of course* dumping PP was the right thing to do because *everybody* (that they know) considers PP an abortion party machine.

They believed their own bullshit and were shocked to find that they are way outside the mainstream.

Read their weasel words carefully: they won’t stop funding of Planned Parenthood this year, but have set up new new criteria that will exclude PP from funding from here on in.

KOMEN’S CORPORATE SPONSORS

http://ww5.komen.org/CorporatePartners.aspx

You know what to do.

@ 19 - coffee through the nose.  that was funny.

Phoebe… I can’t say I’m surprised. Considering the nut of Komen’s effort was to completely infantilize women who were struck with breast cancer (we’re gonna cover you in so much pink and schmarmy teddy bears you’ll think you were having your fifth birthday party!) it follows that you would have a fairly regressive view of women in general.

Komen’s purpose is “awareness raising”—not actually fighting (as numerous links have already proven). It’s not about actually ending breast cancer, it’s about everyone coming together and showing each other how much they really *care* about breast cancer by running together, buying pink shit together, and making sure that when they blow that stop sign, there’s a prominent pink ribbon on the tailgate of their SUV.

This is how we know that we’re good people.

This is the exact same mentality that causes women to loudly proclaim “they would never have an abortion” (even if they think it should be legal) “Because it’s just such a tragedy.” It’s empty posturing, it’s creating a normative narrative that gives people a cheap moral high.

Their interests were already aligned with the anti-choice.

Within a month, there will be an e-mail or a WorldNetDaily article or a Washington Examiner column. And the column will allege, through a vastly simplified chain of events, that Komen is once again engaged in the perfidy of tangential liberalism. People for the American Way once co-sponsored a 5K, Komen let halal companies use the pink ribbon, Hillary Clinton gets mammograms; something is going to set them off.

Faster than you think

Komen apologizes for ‘recent decisions,’ pledges to continue funding Planned Parenthood
[...]

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics - anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

Wingnut reaction - “The scum have gone back on their promise and are still funding baybeee-murder!  To the O’Keefe-mobile!”

Progressive reaction - “Fuck you, fair-weather friends”.

In a way it’s a pity the head of Korman is a woman - you can’t accuse her of tripping over her own dick.

In a way it’s a pity the head of Korman is a woman - you can’t accuse her of tripping over her own dick.

She’s tripping over someone’s dick, it just ain’t hers.

PiaToR - sure you can.  For future reference, in such instances, her own dick just happens to be attached to her father/husband/religious advisor.

Eventually, Komen’s not going to be able to placate them, probably because the actual controversy will make no sense whatsoever. After a few weeks of trying to understand why it can’t partner with Campbell’s Soup, the donations rewarding this week’s decision will dry up. The Planned Parenthood investigation will go away. All Komen will be left with is a vastly reduced donor pool, and a large group of former donors that either remember Komen’s actual betrayal, or will spend every minute looking to manufacture betrayals.

This ...

The only people who can count on conservatives’ reliable, constant support are straight, cis, rich, white men. Anyone else who finds themselves in bed with conservatives needs to realize that they’re being played as disposable pawns.

... & this.  It’s as if they never even heard of Juan Williams, whose little episode with NPR made him millions of conservative “friends” - for about one minute.  Now I honestly wonder if anyone in the world still cares what he has to say.

helen @26: But the dick doesn’t belong to her, she belongs to the dick. (Though that does beg the question, WTF is she doing out in public, running a large organisation? She should be at home baking cookies.)

I strongly suspect that the woman who got them into this somehow convinced them that demonizing planned parenthood would be a popular stance with women who are heavily vested in women’s health issues.

Just another case of wingnuts creating their own reality, that is in opposition to actual reality, then believing in it so strongly and prosletyzing about it so enthusiastically that they convince others that their dreamworld is real.

I just would never have believed the misogyny is so incredibly pervasive as it appears to be in the social media world right now.

There was a lot of “Komen is for nice boobies, PP is for dirty poor sluts” on display. I despair.

From Comment #9:  “Conservative ideology…is essentially a string of ill-formed prejudices tied together by a series of uneducated rationalizations.”

Brilliant!  That about sums it up.  I’m stealing that (with attribution) and posting it all over the place.

I know I wasn’t popular on this site when I concern-trolled that abortion rights are popular and we should act like it, but this is another reminder of that. The pro-life movement is based on a mirage, which is their belief based on polls of the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” that the country is evenly split on abortion.

In fact, actually curtailing abortion rights is deeply unpopular. Planned Parenthood, which they are trying to turn into a demon, is in fact popular. People like it. Women like it. Including many of the women who label themselves “pro-life” in the polls.

Saying you are “pro-life” is for many people a cultural stance, not a legal one. They want to say that they aren’t in favor of libertine sexuality. But they don’t want abortion illegal. Only a small minority does. Roe v. Wade polls very, very well, which means there are plenty of people who label themselves pro-life but support Roe.

What I’d like to see is the pro-choice movement build on this moment, with a media strategy that aims to convince people that the reporting on this issue is wrong, that there is in fact a pro-Roe v. Wade majority in this country, that people like Planned Parenthood, and that corporations and charities who want to get on the “winning”, popular side of this issue need to stand with the pro-choicers.

We liberals quip how conservatives are great at getting elected but horrible at governing or how they go into government to prove government doesn’t work by messing up the government. But I contend they’re equally corrupt and self-serving when they run charities, which is why wingnuts are so eager to have private charity handle the social safety net instead of the government.

@Pezzy #18:  That may be true, but I’d say Cecile Richards has a much harder job (or at least she did until this week).

@bomberE #16:  I believe it’s Penn State that makes donations to Komen, not the other way around. [A mere difference in semantics, I know, but if Komen really cared about this shit they’d give the money back and refuse any future donations from PSU until the “investigation” has run its course.]

@23: For ages the whole breast cancer industry has been eye rollingly annoying and far too cutesy.  It almost comes off as Yay Cancer! U go girl!!!  I couldn’t nail down why it bugged me, but your comment nails it. And don’t get me started on the stupid Save the TaTas and Boobies! bumper stickers. I HATE those.

The Susan Komen Foundation for the “Cure” is nothing more than the women’s health arm of the Republican Party.

Prolly so but the actual Race for the Cure looks like a Democratic Party convention. Komen clearly didn’t understand who their donor base is. Wingnuts aren’t big on jogging.

@23: For ages the whole breast cancer industry has been eye rollingly annoying and far too cutesy.  It almost comes off as Yay Cancer! U go girl!!!  I couldn’t nail down why it bugged me, but your comment nails it. And don’t get me started on the stupid Save the TaTas and Boobies! bumper stickers. I HATE those.

Yeah, insulting stereotypes abound with that organization. I’ve never given them a dime.

@3 - Non-profit CEO salaries

I spent a short time working for a non-profit between my bachelor’s and graduate school training.  We made about 11/hr as foot soldiers in the actual care department, our supervisors made about 20/hr, our department head made about 35/hr, and our CEO made somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000.  As were weren’t collecting like traditional charities but a non-profit service provider our system was a little different but basically the top people are paid ungodly sums because they need to be able to talk to the 1% with their hat still on.  I can stroll up to the mega-donors hat in hand and beg like a champion but it doesn’t make much of a difference compared to the half-million a year doctor who was in the right country clubs, went to the right meetings, and drove the right car to get donations and solicit the government for grants.  I was actually picked to go to one of the director’s meetings (and the amazing party afterwards) because of my education and general pleasant attitude.  The meeting itself was an assembly of the small rich and some large rich, the net worth in the room exceeded at least 300M USD and basically the CEO gave a boring presentation, I stood and got peppered with simple questions and told my humorous anecdotes.  He had these people flex their muscles and got the state legislature to fork over a huge new grant.  It really comes down to elevating these people to the near-1% status so they can stand up with them rather can coming as a poor commoner. 

As for Komen though, they seriously beat themselves into a corner because they forgot the cardinal rule of being a non-profit: Do no evil…visibly.  Show-ey moves like this always back fire because it riles the peasantry up and since Komen gets the vast majority of their donations from small 5Ks and such it’s incredibly short-sighted to think they could replace their plebeian losses with the blood money of the rich.

@bomberE #16:  I believe it’s Penn State that makes donations to Komen, not the other way around. [A mere difference in semantics, I know, but if Komen really cared about this shit they’d give the money back and refuse any future donations from PSU until the “investigation” has run its course.]
Comment #34: Hornet on 02/03 at 04:09 PM

Not the way I read it.  They SGK donate to the medical research facility - Hershey something?

From Comment #9:  “Conservative ideology…is essentially a string of ill-formed prejudices tied together by a series of uneducated rationalizations.”

Brilliant!  That about sums it up.  I’m stealing that (with attribution) and posting it all over the place.

Thanks. I have to give credit to Krugman, though:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/prattle-and-prejudice/

Think of it this way: there was a time when you could say that the right had a model of how the economy worked. A silly model, yes, since it depended on implausibly large effects of marginal tax rates on incentives. Still, supply-side economics had a point of sorts.

But can you discern any model in what Malpass wrote, or for that matter in almost anything on the WSJ editorial page? I can’t. All I see is a bunch of prejudices, strung together with some vaguely economistic-sounding phrases, something like someone talking gibberish that sort of sounds like Swedish. In the world according to the WSJ, low taxes are good (unless the people involved are low income lucky duckies), regulation bad, low inflation good, low interest rates bad, strong dollar good — and don’t ask why.

Conservative “thought” is just an attempt to apply an intellectual veneer to their “fuck change, whitey’s already doing great” agenda, and as such things like “consistency” and “logic” aren’t exactly mandatory. Which is why you can’t count on their consistent support unless you’re, y’know, whitey.

“anti-choicers’ invariable tendency toward rubedom.”

I’m taking this line, I’m using it on Fark, I’m pretending I came up with it, and there’s nothing you can do about it.  Such is the way of the Interwebs.

Yeah, Komen has always had that weird mix of cutesy and creepy. I should have known they were Republicans.

I’ve always thought the “Save the Boobies” campaign was a little insensitive to those women who had to sacrifice their boobies to, you know, live.  Maybe we should care about saving women whether we can save their boobies or not?  Mastectomies are a major surgery and it would be great to continue developing better treatments to reduce the need for them, but no matter what some women won’t be able to “save the boobies” and their lives still matter just as much as the others.  Wasn’t there anyone on that marketing team who took a second to think about how that slogan might be insensitive to a large portion of women they were trying to help?

Karen Handel ran for governor on a platform of defunding PP.  Apparently losing that race didn’t give her a clue that defunding PP isn’t that popular, even in red GA.

I watched this train wreck from beginning to end while curled up with my laptop nursing a cold. I was absolutely in awe of how unprepared they were. They announce that they’re severing ties to the oldest and largest women’s healthcare organization in the country and implying malfeasance, and they had nothing in place to control the message? The stupidity was breath-taking. I knew the backlash was not going to be minor. What, 1 in 5 women use PP sometime in their lives? Add the men, and that’s a lot of people who know what PP is and what they do. And they span the political spectrum and the abortion spectrum except maybe the very extreme anti- end. PP has been a darling of the public for well over half a century. The smear campaign started by with the Moral Majority has caused a wobble, but not that big a wobble.

I kept going back to their website, their FB page, their Twitter, the news outlets as the backlash started wondering how they were going to respond and start the spin. For something like 16 hours there was nothing. The total lack of political savvy was simply unbelievable to me. At some points it left me wondering if this wasn’t a deliberate destruction of Komen because it is (or was ostensibly) a women’s advocacy group. With the revelations and the dots being connected now, I’m back to thinking it was pure stupidity and arrogance existing in an isolated fantasy world.

#34 Hornet:  No, actually it’s Komen giving to Penn State.  To the tune of $7.5 million.  While they are under a criminal investigation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/susan-g-komen-penn-state_n_1250896.html?ref=tw

What you’re talking about is groupthink, senket, it’s a phenomenon first studied in the ‘70s.

The concept of groupthink provides a summary explanation of reasons groups sometimes make poor decisions. Indeed, groups are supposed to be better than individuals at making complex decisions, because, through the membership, a variety of differing perspectives are brought to bear. Group members not only serve to bring new ideas into the discussion but also act as error-correcting mechanisms. Groups also provide social support, which is especially critical for new ideas. But when new perspectives are rejected (as in the “not invented here” syndrome), it is hard to correct errors. And if the social support is geared toward supporting the group’s “accepted wisdom,” the elements that can make groups better decision makers than individuals become inverted, and instead make them worse. Just as groups can work to promote effective thinking/decision making, the same processes which enhance the group’s operation can backfire and lead to disastrous results.

HOW GROUPTHINK WORKS

Janis identified seven points on how groupthink works. First, the group’s discussions are limited to a few alternative courses of action (often only two), without a survey of the full range of alternatives. Second, the group does not survey the objectives to be fulfilled and the values implicated by the choice. Third, the group fails to reexamine the course of action initially preferred by the majority of members from the standpoint of the non-obvious risks and drawbacks that had not been considered when it was originally evaluated. Fourth, the members neglect courses of action initially evaluated as unsatisfactory—they spend little or no time discussing whether they have overlooked non-obvious gain. Fifth, the members make little or no attempt to obtain information from experts who can supply sound estimates of gains and losses to be expected from alternative courses of action. Sixth, selective bias is shown in the way the group reacts to factual information and relevant judgments from experts. Seventh, the members spend little time deliberating how the chosen policy might be hindered by bureaucratic inertia or sabotaged by political opponents; consequently, they fail to work out contingency plans.

I don’t really have a problem with the “Save The Ta-tas/Boobies/Second Base” thing, because I’ve had problems of my own and I know how people use silliness and gallows humor to deal with those things. I rather doubt I’d have anything like that unless I had someone in the family with breast cancer who approved of it, though; it’s only fair to those who feel flippancy is inappropriate. (Same goes the other way—if someone’s offended, they should keep in mind that it’s a very good chance that’s how someone else deals with their issues. Those who aren’t dealing with it should probably stay out of the dispute (he said hypocritically).)

(On the other hand, if someone has one just for the shock value, I’ll be glad to loan you a crowbar…)

Is that true what’s being said, that Komen only passes on 24% of the money it takes in? Any organization that collects north of $300 million in donations, and forwards only 24% of it to their targets, has literally millions of dollars to spread around in personal perks and in favors. It’s no wonder that such an organization, um, I mean money machine, would attract a hierarchy of greed-heads and manipulators eager to get someone else to pay for their spa treatments and hairdos, and tithing to the god of tax cuts and media lies.
That’s over $220 million in free money every year.  They’re getting away with this year after year. So glad they’re being shut down.

Their financials are available on their website.  Or were on Thursday.

#50, Komen is just a right wing money laundering outfit.  Now we all know that, so fuck em, not another dime.