Turns out that in 2011, it spent just 15 percent of its donations on research — nearly half of what it did just a few years prior. And, significantly, its founder, Nancy Brinker, the woman whose vow to the sister she lost to cancer has served as the organization’s poignant, relatable narrative, stepped down as its CEO. In August, Brinker announced she was taking on a new role, as chairwoman of the executive committee. (She is, however, still listed as its CEO and founder on the Komen site. Komen says it’s still looking for her replacement.) In short, the whole series of fiascoes was so appalling that Deanna Zandt, author of “Share This! How You Will Change the World With Social Networking,” called the Komen fiasco a teachable “example of what not to do.”
Yet after more than a year of bad publicity and declining participation, Brinker herself seems to be doing just fine. As Cheryl Hall pointed out this weekend in the Dallas Morning News, Brinker made “$684,717 in fiscal 2012, a 64 percent jump from her $417,000 salary from April 2010 to March 2011.” That’s a whole lot of green for all that pink. Hall notes that’s about twice what the organization’s chief financial officer, Mark Nadolny, or former president Liz Thompson were making. And as Peggy Orenstein points out on her blog Monday, it’s considerably more than the average nonprofit CEO salary of $132,739.
Of course, rewarding CEOs even as they’re bombing out is a way of life in America. Brinker’s salary looks like small potatoes next to, say, the more than, $13 million Hewlett-Packard gave Léo Apotheker just to leave. And Komen told Jim Mitchell at the Dallas Morning News that those figures for Brinker reflect a 2010 salary increase, and that they’re “misleading because of differences between Komen’s fiscal year and the IRS’ calendar year.” Good to bear in mind, but still — that’s a stunning raise to give a person, especially within an organization that has faced scrutiny for its dubious choices in the name of women’s health for some years now.
Think about it like this. A tumor represents a cell lineage that has gone haywire and replicates non-stop. Most of the time you just get a proliferation of whatever type of cell turned cancerous; e.g., if the glandular cells in my testicle became cancerous, the tumor would be a big clump of glandular cells.
Sometimes a tumor can occur in germ line cells, which havent differentiated yet. If there’s a tumor in my germ cells of my testicle, those cells would proliferate out of control like any other tumor, but they would also tend to start differentiating into random types of tissue. Some would start to become hair follicles; some would be muscle; others could be teeth. It’s just an additional layer of disarray.
We cannot forget that in the midst of this executive order there is a big drug company that made millions of dollars because of this mandate," she said. "The governor’s former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company. The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the governor, and this is just flat-out wrong."
“The company was Merck, and it was a $5,000 contribution that I had received from them,” Perry responded. “I raise about $30 million. And if you’re saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended.”
"Well, I’m offended for all the little girls and the parents that didn’t have a choice," Bachmann retorted.
For her part, Bachmann has raised about $146,400 from the pharmaceutical industry over her career in federal politics. This ranks the pharmaceutical and health products industry as her No. 15 career campaign contributor, according to the Center’s research. None of that money has come from Merck, the maker of the Gardasil HPV vaccine. And so far during her 2012 presidential bid, Bachmann has raised $10,200 from the pharmaceutical industry, according to the Center’s research.
Did you get that, Holy Rollers? Bachmann is a hypocrite.
I’ll tell you what is offensive, Mrs. Bachmann: I’m offended by the notion that all of the concerned parents that you allege to represent would give a damn about any other daughter besides their own. To start off, it’s a flip of a coin that your acolytes truly do know better than their children versus being controlling and suppressive parents. What I’m surer about is that as religious as they are, your acolytes do piss little for daughters who are not their own.
You and your acolytes, Mrs. Bachmann, refuse to see that juveniles and anyone who does have sex can and will have sex for the wrong reasons — some of these people will be in your congregations and parishes; most will not, they will be far from you physically and be untouched by your saccharine concern. Few of you and yours have the character and the commitment to make a lasting positive difference in their lives because you are more religious than spiritual. These acts can lead to sexual transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies — these are situations that one cannot pray away. You and yours cannot force the people who find themselves infected and pregnant to be prayerful about the misfortune they have brought upon themselves. You and your acolytes don’t stop there: all of you want to address this situation as theocrats, not citizens.
It is offensive that you, Mrs. Bachmann, would penalize a young girl for not being chaste with leaving her vulnerable to a cancer that could leave her sterile if it doesn’t kill her because you put personal religious convictions ahead of your oath of office. Maybe you’re sore that you didn’t get any of that Merck money. I’m glad I don’t live in Iran where clerics actually make laws, I’m glad that I’m not subjected to the tyrannies of Taliban that want to impose Sharia law on me and this nation would rue the day that it forgets its roots, it’s patrimony and chooses to elect the likes of you, a theocrat, to any constitutional office in any jurisdiction again.
The Komen-bashing is spearheaded by pro-life outfits like the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer and the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute whose brochures call elective abortion “the single most avoidable risk factor” for cancer. The institute’s Angela Lanfranchi, a New Jersey surgeon, claims that “29 out of 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion.” Pro-life TV show Facing Life Head-On (which won a regional Emmy in 2010) dedicated a segment last year to “Komen’s Dark Side.” “Is it really ‘morally permissible’ to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?” opines pro-life blogger Jill Stanek.
All together now…
What is wrong with these people?
Are they too stupid to know that after the stun wears off, even mildly intelligent people will figure out how misogynistic this propaganda is?