[Culture, Politics]
[politics|culture] More on Komen
A friend responded via email to yesterday’s post about the media, political perceptions, and my views on the Komen Foundation. It’s worth reposting, though they specifically requested that I omit attribution. They’ll see any comments people make here, and can covey responses through me if need be.
Here’s a link on media coverage affecting attitudes about politics. Might be something to consider when it comes to other things.
Regarding Komen, I’ve got mixed feelings. I have some warm fuzzies about the group. My mom did a short walk before her diagnosis. The wife of one of my old sources and my source walks it every year and sometimes when they are training their route comes by my house and we chat. So it’s warm fuzzies. People I know do the walk.
But I’m really feeling critical about Komen group. There’s a lot of reasons for me to think that they aren’t a group I’d put time and money into. It’s not just the Planned Parenthood snafu.
They sued other charities for using the words “for the cure.” (To me that’s almost as bad as the Washington Shriners sued the Campfire girls trying to break a 100-year lease on land that the Campfire Girls gave the Shriners. So group that benefits kids sues kids’ group. WTF? Cancer-fighting nonprofit goes after other nonprofits over intellectual property over words that anyone writing about cancer would use. WTF? It’s like the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee suing a brewer for creating 2002 the unofficial amber forgetting that you can’t trademark a year.) I think a nonprofit should take the high road and not worry if someone wants to use the same prepositional phrase.
There’s some concern that more money is being spent on marketing, masked as education (34 percent of the budget page 13 in the FY2011 Annual report, more financial info here. However, I have not looked at their tax statements, which are public record, and compared them to other groups’ statements, such as the American Cancer Society.
There’s also a concern about Komen not recognizing certain carcinogenic as carcinogenic. Jezebel would have it be a red/GOP conspiracy. I’m not so sure about that; I suspect it’s Komen board not understanding science. (That’s my take based on watching some of the lawmakers argue about the science when they were working on outlawing BPAs in Washington.)
There’s also it’s issue with how it uses stats in advertising that caught the attention of two doctors/researchers who published their criticism in the British Medical Journal.
Since Komen is ranked with St. Jude’s as the most trust worthy philanthropy groups in the nation, I think Komen needs to be cautious that the information they provide helps women make informed health choices, rather than misleading them.
Related Posts
Posted: 5:46 am Tue September 18 2012 |
Where am I?
You are reading the blog of Jay Lake, speculative fiction writer and author of hundreds of short stories, many novels, and winner of the John W. Campbell Award.
Learn more here.
Comments
« [photos] Your Tuesday moment of zen | [travel|photos] Visiting the Space Telescope Science Institute »
After the last couple of years, it’s sad that Komen is still considered “trustworthy.” I don’t think they’ve done anything lately to get my trust. I gave money that probably would have gone to sponsor a Komen walker to Planned Parenthood instead.
Without defending Komen in particular, I’d like to point out that part of the problem with the lawsuit(s) concerning “for the cure” do not reflect on those filing suit… so much as they demonstrate that the law is an ass.
Trademark/trade dress law is a strange beast. In particular, it is a “rabid dog” legal subsystem: You have to defend your rights against every known arguable infringement or lose them against everyone, forever. What that means is that if Komen had not sued the particular charitable organizations that it did over that phrase, after Komen asked them to stop using the phrase and they didn’t, Komen could have lost the right to defend that phrase against the kind of sleazebags who advertise worthless products on late-night informercials. Whether stopping at pre-litigation stops would have been an adequate “defense” of the mark can be judged only later, with 20-20 hindsight.
Again, the problem here is much more that the law (along with too much of the bar) is an ass. Creative solutions like the one chosen by Jack Daniels recently simply do not occur to the bar, are unlikely to be approved by (sober) management, and definitely will not satisfy insurance companies.
None of which is an excuse. It’s an explanation… that you should keep in mind the next time you come across somebody’s pay-to-download wookie/ewok slashfic. Whether your neurons are fried by the trademark/trade dress requirements or that particular brand of slashfic (and I only wish it was hypothetical… and didn’t involve furries) is entirely up to you.
… and it would be a lot easier to proofread for verb/number agreement if I had enough caffeine…