The Rant of Rants
Admit it, you missed me.
I was at dinner the other night and the subject of breast cancer came up (I don't remember how, exactly) and I started to gear up and a couple of dining companions, who knew where this was going, filled in the short version of this rant. This is the long version of why breast cancer companies charities will never get a dime of my money so long as I am alive and I will disown anyone of my descendants who does. I have an aunt and grandmother who survived breast cancer, as well as a grandfather who died of Hodgkin's Disease and another who died of multiple strokes, but people seem to care less about that. So, in theory, I have connections to breast cancer, as well as a family history to be worried about in case I have any daughters.
Recently, this came to the fore when a friend posted her mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and given a bad prognosis. She asked for thoughts and prayers, which I am more than able and willing to give. She also asked for donations to be given to the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure (not linking to that, find it your own self) and for our support in her running in the Race for the Cure. Now, I am more than willing to give her money personally so she can visit her mother (who lives very far away from DC), I am willing to take her out and take her mind off things and I am more than willing to pass the hat personally for her financial support. But I am not willing to give the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, nor any other charity focusing on breast cancer. Roughly, my reasons have to do with plenty of government funding available and an even greater amount of private funding available. Roughly, they have enough money for this, they're not getting any more out of me.
It is a difficult task tracking down all the places breast cancer research gets funding. To start, there is the National Cancer Institute (NCI) which is a part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But there is also the Department of Defense funding into this, as well as the Department of Energy and dozens of other private and public resources. The main source of funding and outlays is the NCI, which claims it spent 560 million in breast cancer research and 309 million in prostate cancer research in 2006 (cite here). In 2007, approximately 40,260 women and 450 men will die from breast cancer compared to about 27,050 deaths in men from prostate cancer. By the numbers, this means each fatality from breast cancer gets about 13,755 dollars each and fatalities from prostate cancer receive about 11,423 dollars.
The funding from other government agencies increases this discrepancy. One of the more odd comparisons, look at the DoD's outlay for breast cancer funding (127.5 million this year plus another 15 million form stamps) to prostate cancer funding (80 million this year and no stamp program). Yes, the Department of Defense, which employs more men than women AND can be linked to prostate cancer in veterans from Agent Orange, spends more money on breast cancer research than prostate. Total, that's 142 million compared to 80 million. Add this to NCI funding, that's 702 million for breast cancer compared to 389 million for prostate cancer. The Department of Agriculture kicks in for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, and the program was just reauthorized for 225 million. That's 927 million spent on breast cancer research and prevention to 389 million for prostate cancer.
Where all of this transcends from the mere governmental priorities shift and right into the truly ridiculous is when private industry charity gets into the mix. Best note of how bad this starts is by looking at the number of "cancer partners" the NCI partners with: 18 for Breast Cancer, 6 for Prostate Cancer, and 5 of the 6 of those are partners with every kind of cancer. Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure (since the only cure that fucking matters apparently is breast cancer) has funded about 630 million dollars worth of programs (cite). Finding information on the other associated groups is close to impossible. I tried, I really did, to find exact outlays for how much these groups get in and pay out. The only one I found was Sisters Network, Inc, which took in 700 thousand but had almost 600 thousand in costs in 2005. Tax free status and a healthy "operating costs" line, gotta love that. With all the breast cancer charities out there, they probably pull in another few hundred million, in addition to all the various gimmicks and giveaways companies do.
And THAT'S the damn issue. That's why they're companies, not charities. Dannon, Avon, or whoever else decides they need a tax break to balance out the books that quarter, they pay in to Susan G. Komen or someone, sales go up, but they offset with charity tax deduction AND free advertising. After all, would you rather buy the product that swears on a big label to give money to charity, or the other brand that doesn't? Also, gotta love a charity that is SO concerned with money going to research, they have money for free t-shirts, advertising in the DC television market and yet spent only 380,000 in lobbying in 2006. Somehow, they maintain the reputation as being one of the most effective lobbying arms in Washington and spent only double a Congresscritter's salary on lobbying. It's easy when you can call your opponents evil and anti-woman.
Sen. Coburn, of whom I am not a big fan, but he IS a medical doctor with a focus in obstetrics and family medicine, complained that maybe breast cancer was getting enough funding. His opponents responded thusly. Yes, he is anti-woman, pro-death and generally evil. The message from Komen and the ilk is clear, if you are against increasing funding for breast cancer research, you want women to die and you are insulting any woman who has ever heard of breast cancer. From personal experience, if you speak against breast cancer funding, you will face wrath. I should clarify, I'm not against breast cancer research. I want it to be cured. I hate cancer. What I hate is having to say that each time I talk about inequities in breast cancer funding. There are few other issues where you have to say you don't hate the whole thing or some whole group attached to it all, and I hate talking about those too.
It's long been true that you rarely win friends and convince people by calling them names, but what you can do is occasionally get funding through. Someone doesn't have to be right to sign off on funding, they can also be against something wholesome and be shamed/aggravated into voting for funding. But it's not good political debate. It doesn't help when people who question the PATRIOT Act are called unpatriotic or supporting terrorists. It's low minded when people who are pro-choice are called baby killers. It's just unAmerican when people who are against gun control are accused of wanting criminals to kill people. We don't get anywhere by making things into what they're not. We don't get anything resolved or decided by calling each other names.
Of course, the point of American politics is often not debate, but decisive victory.
So it is written, so do I see it.
I was at dinner the other night and the subject of breast cancer came up (I don't remember how, exactly) and I started to gear up and a couple of dining companions, who knew where this was going, filled in the short version of this rant. This is the long version of why breast cancer companies charities will never get a dime of my money so long as I am alive and I will disown anyone of my descendants who does. I have an aunt and grandmother who survived breast cancer, as well as a grandfather who died of Hodgkin's Disease and another who died of multiple strokes, but people seem to care less about that. So, in theory, I have connections to breast cancer, as well as a family history to be worried about in case I have any daughters.
Recently, this came to the fore when a friend posted her mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and given a bad prognosis. She asked for thoughts and prayers, which I am more than able and willing to give. She also asked for donations to be given to the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure (not linking to that, find it your own self) and for our support in her running in the Race for the Cure. Now, I am more than willing to give her money personally so she can visit her mother (who lives very far away from DC), I am willing to take her out and take her mind off things and I am more than willing to pass the hat personally for her financial support. But I am not willing to give the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, nor any other charity focusing on breast cancer. Roughly, my reasons have to do with plenty of government funding available and an even greater amount of private funding available. Roughly, they have enough money for this, they're not getting any more out of me.
It is a difficult task tracking down all the places breast cancer research gets funding. To start, there is the National Cancer Institute (NCI) which is a part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But there is also the Department of Defense funding into this, as well as the Department of Energy and dozens of other private and public resources. The main source of funding and outlays is the NCI, which claims it spent 560 million in breast cancer research and 309 million in prostate cancer research in 2006 (cite here). In 2007, approximately 40,260 women and 450 men will die from breast cancer compared to about 27,050 deaths in men from prostate cancer. By the numbers, this means each fatality from breast cancer gets about 13,755 dollars each and fatalities from prostate cancer receive about 11,423 dollars.
The funding from other government agencies increases this discrepancy. One of the more odd comparisons, look at the DoD's outlay for breast cancer funding (127.5 million this year plus another 15 million form stamps) to prostate cancer funding (80 million this year and no stamp program). Yes, the Department of Defense, which employs more men than women AND can be linked to prostate cancer in veterans from Agent Orange, spends more money on breast cancer research than prostate. Total, that's 142 million compared to 80 million. Add this to NCI funding, that's 702 million for breast cancer compared to 389 million for prostate cancer. The Department of Agriculture kicks in for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, and the program was just reauthorized for 225 million. That's 927 million spent on breast cancer research and prevention to 389 million for prostate cancer.
Where all of this transcends from the mere governmental priorities shift and right into the truly ridiculous is when private industry charity gets into the mix. Best note of how bad this starts is by looking at the number of "cancer partners" the NCI partners with: 18 for Breast Cancer, 6 for Prostate Cancer, and 5 of the 6 of those are partners with every kind of cancer. Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure (since the only cure that fucking matters apparently is breast cancer) has funded about 630 million dollars worth of programs (cite). Finding information on the other associated groups is close to impossible. I tried, I really did, to find exact outlays for how much these groups get in and pay out. The only one I found was Sisters Network, Inc, which took in 700 thousand but had almost 600 thousand in costs in 2005. Tax free status and a healthy "operating costs" line, gotta love that. With all the breast cancer charities out there, they probably pull in another few hundred million, in addition to all the various gimmicks and giveaways companies do.
And THAT'S the damn issue. That's why they're companies, not charities. Dannon, Avon, or whoever else decides they need a tax break to balance out the books that quarter, they pay in to Susan G. Komen or someone, sales go up, but they offset with charity tax deduction AND free advertising. After all, would you rather buy the product that swears on a big label to give money to charity, or the other brand that doesn't? Also, gotta love a charity that is SO concerned with money going to research, they have money for free t-shirts, advertising in the DC television market and yet spent only 380,000 in lobbying in 2006. Somehow, they maintain the reputation as being one of the most effective lobbying arms in Washington and spent only double a Congresscritter's salary on lobbying. It's easy when you can call your opponents evil and anti-woman.
Sen. Coburn, of whom I am not a big fan, but he IS a medical doctor with a focus in obstetrics and family medicine, complained that maybe breast cancer was getting enough funding. His opponents responded thusly. Yes, he is anti-woman, pro-death and generally evil. The message from Komen and the ilk is clear, if you are against increasing funding for breast cancer research, you want women to die and you are insulting any woman who has ever heard of breast cancer. From personal experience, if you speak against breast cancer funding, you will face wrath. I should clarify, I'm not against breast cancer research. I want it to be cured. I hate cancer. What I hate is having to say that each time I talk about inequities in breast cancer funding. There are few other issues where you have to say you don't hate the whole thing or some whole group attached to it all, and I hate talking about those too.
It's long been true that you rarely win friends and convince people by calling them names, but what you can do is occasionally get funding through. Someone doesn't have to be right to sign off on funding, they can also be against something wholesome and be shamed/aggravated into voting for funding. But it's not good political debate. It doesn't help when people who question the PATRIOT Act are called unpatriotic or supporting terrorists. It's low minded when people who are pro-choice are called baby killers. It's just unAmerican when people who are against gun control are accused of wanting criminals to kill people. We don't get anywhere by making things into what they're not. We don't get anything resolved or decided by calling each other names.
Of course, the point of American politics is often not debate, but decisive victory.
So it is written, so do I see it.