Reply to Komen CEO Nancy Brinker’s life among the 0.1 percent

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Komen CEO Nancy Brinker’s life among the 0.1 percent"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

actually i guarantee you that the Komen 3-Day walks for the cure will continue to be packed. [/quote]

But for how long and how strong?  I bet that this year and next year will see a significant decrease in the number of attendees, while the Avon Walk will see a significant increase.  Depending on how they manage the next year or two, the trend may continue or they may be able to salvage this publicity debacle and plateau.  But chances are they will be a much smaller force in the charitable world, since there are other charitable donations that have the same focus and will be less objectionable to some donors for the near future at least.[/quote]

What the above shows is how shortsignted people are!  SK screwed up here.   Okay.  [b]When your college/university screws up (which I am confident it has in one way or another), do you stop giving to it.[/b]  I doubt it.  Show some loyalty.  Kimon will get back on track.  The VP has left, after all.[/quote]

Absolutely. My alma mater pissed me off something fierce with some policy decisions it made about 7 years ago and hasn't received a dime from me since. And I used to give a lot, with matching gifts from my employer.[/quote]

Thus, when you screw up at work, I presume you expect to be fired immediately, regardless of the severity of the screw up.  Certainly, if Komen continues to screw up, I will cease my support.  But, as with friends and family (and, hopefully, your employer), I will give Komen a pass this time.  Nobody died.  Nobody stole money or property here.  Nobody commited a crime or even a civil violation.  Komen simply made a bone headed decision, which it then reversed.

[/quote]

Some screw-ups at work are firing offenses the first time they happen. Others are firing offenses if they represent a pattern.

In Komen's case, one can decide to cease support under either scenario.

Scenario 1 is that the effort to cut off PP funding was so transparently bullshit and counter to its mission that it's a firing offense.

Scenario 2 is that Scenario 1 brought to light a pattern of conduct by SGK that is inconsistent with what I expect from an organization receiving my charitable dollars (cutting off funds for stem cell research, high salaries and overhead, suing other organizations for using the phrase "for the cure", slapping pink on HANDGUNS) that I'm permanently turned off.

They can rehab and come back to me in a couple of years, but I'm done. And with a clear conscience.[/quote]

I have nothing to do with Komen, but PP is confused.

Komen is criticized both for not sufficiently funding research and for defunding PP.  PP does not do research, but does provide terrific services to low income women.  Can't have it both ways on the research argument.  Komen also does advocacy work, meaning that it advocates for more goverment research dollars on breast cancer and for useful regulatory changes.  That is not research directly, but is critical.

Komen's salaries are not particularly high.  Check out your college/university President.  I am confident he/she is making as much, if not more.  Check out the CEOs of the other large charities.  Are you still contributing to them.  I also gather Briker did not take a salary for many years.

Komen had every right to try to control the use of "for the cure" to the extent that it legally could.  This is basic branding.  If Komen did not, Komen would lose material opportunities to raise money for research and health care services.  The choice Komen faces is to allow every disease group to copy what Komen created or to control the branding for Komen's benefit.  The former results in lost opportunities for Komen (ie, less sponsorship money), while the latter results in more money for Komen programs, whether they be research or health care services.  If every disease group was allowed to piggy back on Komen's branding, Komen would receive substantially less money from its sponsors.  Tiger Woods would not have received as much money from Rolex, if he were also promoting a rival watch company.  This is basic business sense.  And, to the extent that we are concerned about breast cancer, we should hope Komen makes good business decisions.  The more money it raises from whatever sources, the more money it can dedicate to research and health care services

As for slapping pink on HANDGUNS, I am perfectly okay with that.  I am a firm supporter of stringent gun control, and consider the NRA to be one of the worst organizations in the country.  But the fact is that handguns are not illegal, and will not be made illegal anytime soon.  Komen is simply trying to reach a segment of the US population.  The implication of the previous P is that Komen should work only with PP and not with any group that might cater to the more conservative segments of the US.  That is dead wrong.  All Americans must deal with breast cancer.  Komen should work with most any organization and with anybody that is interested in breast cancer.  Komen should have no views on other unrelated issues.  Komen supporters need not agree on other issues; they only must agree on Komen's breast cancer mission.  If one couldn't support Komen because one's views differ from other Komen supporters on unrelated issues, then this country is really messed up.  Komen should be a unifying force around breast cancer.  Other issues can be fought and argued in other forums.   All Americans, especially women, lose under the previous P's views.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics