indyfabz

Part of it may be due to the Planned Parenthood flap of a few years ago. IIRC, Komen cut ties with Planned Parenthood, the country's second leading provider of abortion services. When people complained, Komen reversed its decision. Komen probably alienated people on both sides of the issue.

As for the numbers you posted, I have raised a good amount of money for the National MS Society over the years. Its breakdown of expenses is similar. Not all the money raised goes to research. As your chart shows, there are expenditures for services that directly help people. One example that comes to mind is a home stair lift for a local woman with MS. It helped become more mobile and be able to work. And most of the people I know that work at the local chapter, which is one of the largest in the country in terms of clients and funds raised, do not make a lot of money.

veganbikes

You did fail to mention the fact they promote products that cause cancer or help make it worse and much of the research they have funded has already been done by others and has resulted in nothing. In 32 years of this scam they have not come up with a cure, they have not even said what the root cause of their cancer is and have virtually ignored women with stage 4 amongst other things. They of course haven't said what the root causes are because that would piss off the Ford Motor Company, Yoplait, Caterpillar, American Airlines, KFC, General Mills (who opposed labeling GMOs) and Baker Hughes (they make pink drillbits for fracking) just to name a few. Plus most of those companies who are "donating" are donating basically what amounts to pennies for them while garnering so much more in free advertising and publicity. Some companies have put a cap on their donations so if they sell x amount of BPA plastic water bottles more than the cap, all of that money is going back to the company that makes it and not even to Komen or Avon or whichever charity.

I don't see anything positive about an organization claiming to want to end cancer, giving people cancer and funding looping research that hasn't really helped anyone (and is mostly directed towards light skinned people) . I also don't see the positives about taking a $600,000+ salary working for a company that is netting millions upon millions while there are people in the world who have breast cancer who cannot afford doctor bills and other living expenses and none of them are getting help! I am not saying someone cannot live comfortably but living as a millionare is sick and disgusting. Plus if you are promoting products even some you have made that go against your organization it just makes it so much worse. Not only are you making big profits but you are harming people you claim to want to help.

The goal is not to emulate the corporations because we have seen how bad they are but to actually go out and help people.

Also lets not forget when they withdrew funding for mammograms at Planned Parenthood, which is something they are big on, even though science has shown it causes more false positives. All of that early detection crap is causing women to fear they have it when they don't and get more unnecessary treatment which is taking money and resources from those who actually do have it. But if your thing is doing that you shouldn't withdraw funding for it especially because wealthy theocratic men who dislike women and want to control them tell you to.

I highly suggest you watch Pink Ribbons Inc. it is on Netflix. I knew a decent bit about them previous and had done a bit of private research on my own about them but hearing stories from women afflicted and from people who have devoted a lot more time and research to it has opened my eyes up much much wider than before.

mdilthey

veganbikes, I'm sorry, but if Susan G. Komen refused to endorse anything that *might* cause cancer, they'd have to rule out everything that wasn't underneath the ocean since 1945. Thanks to nuclear testing, there's enough radiation globally to prevent the construction of Geiger counters using anything but metal found in sunken WWII warships and U-boats.

If you want to go on a crusade, how about trying to get one of the 5,800 coal plants in the U.S. shut down? They're unbelivably carcinogenic and cause about 30,000 deaths per year. Instead you're crusading against a cancer company.

Anything the size of Susan G. Komen is going to be imperfect. Management in different regions may act independently of company guidelines, the extent of certain actions may only come out after the fact, etc. **** happens. Those people work damn hard, and to discount and disrespect all of that hard work entirely because they haven't found a cure for cancer is absolutely deplorable.

mdilthey

In a perfect world, incredibly skilled leadership works for free in a nonprofit group. Unfortunately, Susan G. Komen operates in the real world.

indyfabz

Earlier this year I was featured in a Great Falls Tribune article about the positive economic impact cycle tourism has in Montana. During my nine day trip in the state I encountered some two dozen people on self-contained tours. In addition, I crossed paths with Adventure Cycling's supported Cycle Montana ride in Twin Bridges and again in Butte. In Butte, where the event had a layover day, several of the participants stayed in the same hotel I stayed in and went out to dinner on their own dimes. Even many of the people I saw participating in the Great Divide Mountain Bike Race were dropping coin at the Wise River Club in the tiny town of the same name. Between ground transportation, bike-related services, camping products (e.g., stove fuel), food, camping at private facilities, donations to libraries for Internet use and two motel stays, I spent many hundreds of dollars in connection with the trip. I probably dropped close to $150 in Butte alone.

mdilthey

Reminds me of my favorite cycling fact. Someone did the math on what the road damage tax should be from cycling tires. Because of the way physics works with our low weight, the calculation came out to less than a penny per year in damage.

So, if someone asks you why you don't pay taxes for the damage you do for roads, throw a penny at them. If you're using four panniers and a trailer, might want to make it two.

indyfabz

As Chris Rock once quipped: "I've been watching the Jerry Lewis Telethon for damn near 20 years--not one bit of progress whatsoever....Where's all the money going? To keep Jerry's hair black? Think about it: Frank Sinatra: Dead! Sammy David, Jr.: Dead! Dean Martin: Dead! Jerry Lewis still has a full head of black hair."

Doug64

A 2012 study, conducted for the State of Oregon, documents travelers who participated in bicycle-related activities while traveling in Oregon spent spent nearly $400 million in 2012- representing about 4.4% of the direct traveling spending in the state.

For the full report:
https://www.deanrunyan.com/doc_library/bicycletravel.pdf

veganbikes

Wow, that is one of the best cop-outs I have seen. The environment and poor diet/health were a huge part of the anti breast cancer movement before it got co-opted, it is one of the biggest causes of breast cancer. Brinker and her organization go out of their way to endorse those who make products that cause cancer. It isn't some minor clerical error or some rich guy giving some money and nobody really checking on it. This is the crux of their organization. Getting corporate sponsorship is their company guideline, they don't care who is giving them money. They don't care that the ladies working in the Ford plants making plastics (and other plastics plants as well) are a lot more likely to get breast cancer . They don't care that obesity and poor diet causes cancer, that is why the work with Yoplait and KFC.

Also the whole coal plant thing is a red herring. I wasn't talking about the impact of coal plants and you are using them to make it seem like all I care about was Komen. That is false. We were talking about the breast cancer industry so there would be no need to talk about anything else. However yes coal is a huge problem so is fracking and guess who supports fracking???

This is more than just imperfection and I am not looking for perfection this is a scam throughout. They haven't found a cure because they aren't looking for a cure. If they cure cancer they don't have money and Susan G. Komen fades away. They want you to believe they care about cancer so they can stay in business.

I should also note i never said I am opposed to someone making some money while part of the non-profit industrial complex. I am just opposed to corporate like salaries and corruption. That and you still haven't really responded to what I have said. You have talked around it. You don't have to blindly worship a charity because they tell you to. Some charities just don't have the right mindset and goals and should always do some research before you blindly support them.

mdilthey

veganbikes, I don't support Susan G. Komen aside from a pink USB drive I got for a dollar on Amazon.

I'm a Sustainability Science student in a grad program here in Massachusetts. it's a fairly new major for universities in the United States, and is an interdisciplinary science major that focuses on making changes to broken infrastructure for a better future.

I'll use an example from my field.

There's a guy in South America looking to certify oil companies as fair-trade. Now, if you said, "Oil companies are abominable and should be eliminated" I would agree with you, and support you for saying so. However, the reality is, for at least 40 years and likely longer, they are not going anywhere.

By certifying these companies as fair trade, this guy David is taking steps to protect indigenous people in South America who don't have 40 years to wait for oil to disappear. Most of them don't have three years to wait for a lawsuit. Their way of life is dying now.


My opinion on the Susan G. Komen foundation is that by supporting Yoplait, they are not "endorsing obesity that causes cancer." You can make a case for it, and semantically you would be right, but realistically, IN THE REAL WORLD, this is not something that they should be berated for. How many cancer patients are receiving counseling, care BEYOND a cure, because of the millions raised?

These issues are not black and white, good vs. evil. I am not talking around you, I am just refusing to refute you because I do not believe anything you are saying is wrong. I do believe your demands of a "perfect" charity are unrealistic and trying to meet them would reduce the overall, NET impact of the company. Many women and men, too, do not have time to wait for a cure. They need care in other ways now.

Susan G. Komen is imperfect, yes. Susan G. Komen is also the only hope we have. If you think you can do more, or better, go do it. Otherwise, your critiques are moving things backwards, not forwards.

indyfabz

The GF and I did CO 25 that year, so some that nearly $400 million was spent by us.

Doug64

Thank you, come again!

Machka 

Is that what this is all about? Will your next thread be all about how we can pay for your vacaction ... er, um ... sponsor you?

axolotl

"The only hope we have"? That's an absurd statement.

Read this Reuter's article from Feb., 2012:
Insight: Komen charity under microscope for funding, science | Reuters

In absolute terms, Komen is a leader in funding breast cancer research among private organizations. The $63 million it granted in 2011 pales beside the estimated $763 million spent by the National Institutes of Health in 2011 and the $150 million budgeted by the Department of Defense in 2012.
------------------------------------------------
So, U.S. federal government breast cancer research funding was more than 14 times what Komen was funding a few years ago. I suspect that Komen's research funding is even less now because the level of donations to Komen dropped significantly after the Planned Parenthood mess under Brinker's watch. Still think that Komen is "the only hope we have"?

The organization is now called "Susan G. Komen for the Cure".

There are more interesting tidbits in:
Susan G. Komen for the Cure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As of March 2013, Komen dropped from Charity Navigator's highest rating of four stars down to three stars due to a financial rating of two stars. The organization has been criticized for its use of donor funds, its choice of sponsor affiliations, its role in commercial cause marketing and its use of misleading statistics in advertising. In 2012, a Komen attempt to withdraw funding to Planned Parenthood for mammograms drew controversy, leading to a significant decline in donations and event participation from which Komen has yet to fully recover.

According to Komen's 2011–2012` IRS Form 990 declarations, then-CEO Nancy Brinker made $684,717 in that fiscal year, a 64 percent raise. Komen stated the last CEO salary hike had taken place in November 2010.

Charity Navigator president and CEO Ken Berger described this remuneration as "extremely high".

This pay package is way outside the norm. It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross.

After the release of this information, Doctor Judith Salerno was named CEO, with Brinker named Founder and Chair of Global Strategy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Salerno became CEO nearly 18 months ago after Brinker's debacle regarding Planned Parenthood.

"Incredibly skilled leadership"? Hopefully that's a truer statement now than it was 18 months ago.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for you to retract your outrageous allegations of "bullying".

mdilthey

Ok. I hereby retract my outrageous allegations of "bullying." Let me know what other wheels you want greased so we can roll on

mdilthey

Haha, I'm glad I'm not the only one who pauses and thinks this sometimes.

My opinion; If you have sponsors when you leave for your tour and you raise money for a cause, you're a charity tourist and good on you. If you leave for your tour to "raise awareness," and haven't actually raised any money, that's nice, but I don't know if you're a crusader for humanity...

I'm not sure I, personally, would be comfortable spending charity donations on a bike for a journey. It's easy to make a bike tour look like some magnificent journey to suburban adults with deep pockets, when in actuality it's not difficult to buy a bike yourself. It's like asking somebody to buy your sneakers before a charity walk.

mobilemail

I would like to try my hand at a reasonable answer. I an prepared for my flogging. :-)

It seems correct that you ask about "productive member" and not "revenue generating member". Folks who are productive in art, music, or a million things beside my aforementioned stereotypes, are in fact adding value to our society even if they are broker than cat crap. If the expecation is that every member of society is revenue generating, that simply seems unrealistic.

Further, it seems that, at a minimum, we really only need to "produce" more than we consume. So how consumptive to society are bicycle tourists?

I say, if a cyclist is self sufficient, and has a method of enhancing the life or well being of someone else, this person is, at some level, productive to society.

Blindfold please, no cigarette...

mobilemail

Any popcorn left? :-)

DeadGrandpa

...uh, I have a question. Did anybody here sit around when they were a teenager, contemplating what to do with their life, and actually think, "I want to make a contribution to society!"??? Because I never did. If somewhere along my path I happened to contribute, it was out of a desire to work and make money, performing some kind of labor for which someone attached value enough to pay me. If society either fails or excels, it won't be because most people do or do not want to consciously 'contribute'. Rather, it will be because there exists an economic system which encourages activities which, in the aggregate, help society function. There may be some small percentage of the population who altruistically seek to better society; the doctors and nurses working in ebola clinics come to mind. For the rest of us, money talks. And yes, I'm still trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up. While I think about that, I'm going on a long bike ride.
Hey, isn't someone complaining that this discussion ought to be in Politics and Religion?

veganbikes

Again I never said I was looking for perfection. You also are trying to apologize for or excuse the wrong things they are doing. That seems to be your argument. "Well they should take money from companies that are helping to cause cancer because that tiny bit of money is going to "stuff" that kind of helps people"

Their early detection stuff is mostly B.S. that results in a lot of false positives and people getting care for something they don't have which takes resources from people that have it. Science has proven that and they still are going against it. Even without their support of cancer through the companies giving them pennies, they are doing something that is not actually helping people with cancer.

The amount of money going to care is the lowest amount according to your chart. They spend more trying to get more money and more on false education and lying than they do on CARE. I am sorry but they are a scam. It is not even a perfection issue they are outright scamming people from their money and giving people false hopes while not working towards a cure but doing enough busy work to make it seem like they are. It is the whole "the boss is coming look busy" routine, they are just shuffling papers and typing gibberish to make you think they are hard at work when in reality they are slacking off ala OfficeSpace

If Komen is all we have than I feel even more sorry for those afflicted. Scamming people who have cancer is a pretty low thing to do. If I had the money that Komen had I would put it towards good research. I would go out and find afflicted people all over the world willing to help with research and I would make sure that things are as transparent as possible. Most of the money would go into research for an actual cure and treatment and if science proved something doesn't work I wouldn't hammer on with it but would scale back and figure out things that do work. I would fight hard to get cancer causing products off the market and work towards ending the environmental causes of breast cancer. However I already devote a good deal of my time towards activism and a lot of what I do helps those with cancer in different ways without actually addressing cancer specifically.

The oil companies aren't going anywhere because we aren't doing anything to stop them. We continue supporting them even after they screw up royally. For a while people stopped buying Exxon after Valdez and now they have gone back to buying it, same with BP and Shell and all the others. We give them money and support. If we stop breeding and work on sustainability we can use less oil and not have these problems. Trying to work for "fair trade" oil is not likely to happen any faster than anything else and unless you have standards and watchdogs and really are careful it is all for naught.

mdilthey

We are getting nowhere. Your only argument for the foundation purposefully not curing cancer is the fact that cancer isn't cured. That kind of all-or-nothing logic baffles me. Are you saying every anti-cancer organization in the world is faking research?

You also discounted fair trade oil when it's already happening. Five years from inception to implementation. It's a system already mitigating environmental and cultural destruction in south America. The fact that you're wiling to discount it without bothering to look into it seems to be a theme in your arguments across the board...

Anyway, I know better than to argue with people who only speak to reinforce their own opinions. You should get a one-handed keyboard to make it more convenient when you pat yourself on the back.

mobilemail

Is it possible we have debated away from the core of the central premise, "Can bicycle tourers be considered productive members of society?"

indyfabz

That was my 4th CO. Definitely want to come back some day and so some self-contained riding. Maybe reprise CO 15, where we rode from border (Nyssa) to border (Florence), only I would do it at little slower pace than 6 days.

staehpj1

I should know better, but on the very unlikely chance that this topic was offered as something other than a troll...

Actually that isn't what you asked. You asked if bicycle tourers were productive members of society, not whether the activity of touring offered anything to society. The two are quite different. Bicycle tourers are a diverse group composed of people of a diverse range of professions, ages, ethnicity, income levels, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and just about any other factor you can come up with. So asking whether they are productive members of society is pretty much equivalent to asking whether members of society in general are productive.

If you are asking about the activity rather than the people doing it. I'd say no not especially, but why should it? Should we expect all our recreational or leisure activities to offer something to society other than recreation or leisure time for its members?

Dave Cutter

People who produce... can be considered productive.

Spending and and/or consuming is not an act of production. Recreation is not production. When and how much one spends (either time or funds) on recreation (or anything else), does not by itself determine productivity.

I am sure it has been ingrained into most adults that we need to at least not be a drain on the efforts of others. But the OP's question hints at some need to justify his/her or other cyclists (PEOPLE's) existence here.

This all hints at the new-age ideas that mankind are somehow transplanted here on this planet by alien beings.

My people... believe we are native to planet Earth... as are all the animals that we share the planet with. There is no requirement for bugs, fishes, birds, or people to somehow produce.