Battra92 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Good article over at National Review that shows the whole Komen backlash to be ridiculous and unfounded. You Should Find the Anti-Komen Backlash Disgusting, Even If You’re Pro-Choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) If by "good article" you mean "wildly inaccurate article", then yes, it was good. The author thinks that Planned Parenthood themselves were behind the public outcry, and tries to write about the hacking of their site and Wikipedia like Planned Parenthood somehow put others up to it. Neither statement is accurate; the uproar was generated by Komen pulling the funding, not Planned Parenthood themselves. Planned Parenthood didn't have to do anything; humans with a proper moral conscience did all the work for them. The mere suggestion that Planned Parenthood was purely behind this is a disgusting accusation from a losing side of the field trying to throw false accusations around. Edited February 3, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 The article is saying that it's silly for PP and its supporters to piss and moan when they stop getting free money. It also brings up the previous point "Komen was retargeting the $680,000 they granted Planned Parenthood, not dousing it with kerosene and setting it alight." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes, but it's also saying that Planned Parenthood secretly masterminded all of the public outrage. "Imagine I volunteered to run a cub scout troop, and for years, when the annual soapbox derby came near, I knew I could count on Joe’s Deli as good for a hundred dollar donation. If one year Old Man Joe decided he didn’t want to donate any more — because he didn’t like the design of our racer, or because he thought his hundred bucks was better spent on a little league team, or because he disapproved of the scouts’ stance on gays — what on earth would justify me going on public access TV to grillOld Man Joe on why he hates kids? What would justify me hacking the Joe’s Deli web site or maliciously editing Old Man Joe’s Wikipedia page? What would justify me goading a handful of my city councilman into standing up at the next town meeting and publicly calling on Old Man Joe to reinstate his donation?" All this implies that Planned Parenthood organized this themselves. They didn't. The public did, because the public is awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Also, I find it ironic that they're painting the Komen organization like THEY'RE the victim here, and that THEY should be allowed to say whatever the hell they wanted to say about abortion. The public gave their response too; that they would stop supporting Komen. Of course, that is more than an acceptable response in this capitalist country, but NOOOO, according to National Review only Komen is allowed to vote with its money. Typical double standards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think you're reading too much into the implication that it was PP themselves when he repeatedly referes to the "PP set" numerous times in the article above. Anyway, regardless of who the outrage is from it's still rediculous. Let me try to explain it a different way. Lets say you are poor and have $20 in your pocket and you're going to buy groceries. I walk up to you and give you $20 under the condition that you use it to buy groceries. You take my $20 and buy groceries with it then you use the $20 in your wallet to buy video games. Technically you used my $20 to buy groceries but in reality all I succeeded in doing was buying you videogames. That's why PP is being investigated. Komen is doing their due dilligence making sure the money they donate is being used on the intended purpose and people are raising hell over it. It's a preposterous and rediculous fake outrage. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Well the article is from the National Review, not exactly renowned for its balanced editorials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Komen is doing their due dilligence making sure the money they donate is being used on the intended purpose and people are raising hell over it. It's a preposterous and rediculous fake outrage. Maybe so, but the example at the end is clearly stating "They used to donate to me, but now they don't anymore, so I hacked their websites myself." Not much room for interpretation there. And I see where you're coming from when you say that Komen may not like everything Planned Parenthood does with their money, but clearly everyone else that raised their voice did. And since they used their freedom of speech in a way that conservatives viewed unsatisfactory, we now have this attack blog post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) It's not even an attack piece. Komen's website was hacked edit: defaced (they thought it was a hack at the time), There was a large public outcry. It's a simple piece calling out those people for being fools. Edited February 3, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Lets say you are poor and have $20 in your pocket and you're going to buy groceries. I walk up to you and give you $20 under the condition that you use it to buy groceries. You take my $20 and buy groceries with it then you use the $20 in your wallet to buy video games. Technically you used my $20 to buy groceries but in reality all I succeeded in doing was buying you videogames. That's why PP is being investigated. But it's not like Planned Parenthood ever hid that they intended to provide abortions. A more accurate analogy would be me being poor and having $20 and saying I'm going to go buy $10 of groceries and $10 of video games, then you give me $20 on the condition I use it to buy groceries, so then I actually spend $30 on groceries and $10 on video games (or perhaps $20 on groceries and $20 on video games, I can't claim to know that PP isn't shifting money around, but people also need to remember that "being investigated for" does not mean "is guilty of"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 But it's not like Planned Parenthood ever hid that they intended to provide abortions. A more accurate analogy would be me being poor and having $20 and saying I'm going to go buy $10 of groceries and $10 of video games, then you give me $20 on the condition I use it to buy groceries, so then I actually spend $30 on groceries and $10 on video games (or perhaps $20 on groceries and $20 on video games, I can't claim to know that PP isn't shifting money around, but people also need to remember that "being investigated for" does not mean "is guilty of"). The allegation is that the money going to them is not being used for its intended purpose and you are right that they are being investigated (which is what I said). Funding probably would have been restored if the investigation had found nothing anyway. One more reason why the outrage is silly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 The public gave their response too; that they would stop supporting Komen. No, the very vocal political left gave their response to stop supporting Komen. Others have opted to donate to Komen and their fundraising went through the roof. I also find it sad that Komen ever gave money to Planned Parenthood in the first place. It is not some righteous organization by any means. Instead it's an organization radically outside Mainstream America in its views that was founded on the basis of eugenics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 You know, because Planned Parenthood doesn't do anything good for women at all. If anything, treating women fairly is outside of mainstream American views. I don't see how that matters. Anyways, it's pretty obvious that during the next grand cycle PPs funding will be cut from Komen due to the investigation even if the money for the current cycle will still go through. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) http://www.theonion....tionplex,20476/ Edited February 3, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 The public gave their response too; that they would stop supporting Komen. No, the very vocal political left gave their response to stop supporting Komen. Others have opted to donate to Komen and their fundraising went through the roof. I also find it sad that Komen ever gave money to Planned Parenthood in the first place. It is not some righteous organization by any means. Instead it's an organization radically outside Mainstream America in its views that was founded on the basis of eugenics. Ah, there you go, citing Margaret Sanger and eugenics. But if you actually did some research into what you're saying, you would realize that Planned Parenthood's connection to eugenics is not only dated, but also far different than what propaganda would have you believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood "In the 1920s various theories of eugenics were popular among intellectuals in the United States. For example, 75% of colleges offered courses on eugenics.[88] Sanger, in her campaign to promote birth control, teamed with eugenics organizations such as the American Eugenics Society, although she argued against many of their positions.[89][90][91] She believed that birth control, sterilization and abortion should be voluntary and not based on race." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Instead it's an organization radically outside Mainstream America in its views that was founded on the basis of eugenics. So I was curious on this one. As mentioned the other day I didn't even know "Planned Parenthood" was an organisation not just a phrase like "family planning". For those in a similar position the lass that made this origination was a bit into the idea of eugenics. In the 1920s. Now there's a slight, well I say slight it's somewhat major, a bit like how Enid Blyton writes about "Fannys" a lot in her books and why it makes british kids laugh their heads off these days. Or how Gandalf set fire to a faggot. Eugenics in modern day is a "bad word" because of Nazi eugenics (i.e ayran race n all that).....in the 1940s. Planned Parenthood was formed over 20 years ahead of that. Also worth noting the lass who had these ideas 1. kept them as just that, ideas. 2. dropped dead over 45 years ago. A terrible condition that makes it really hard to try and make the american aryan race. Something that from my understanding is not what she was doing with Planned Parenthood. edit: I guess a bit of what Duke said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SixTwoSixFour Posted February 4, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Yep, what villains. Killing babies left and right. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mr. GOH! Posted February 4, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Komen has always been awful. The amount they spend on administration and suing other non-profits is indefensible. Also this from that execrable National Review article: "Look, the beauty of free speech is that, if you’re inclined to do so, you can write a check to PP in an act of solidarity, or write a check to Komen as an expression of moral approval." But talking about your disapproval of Komen is bad? FUCK THAT. Speech is free. If you think the only or best way to exercise the right of free speech is through money, you're an asshole and missing the point. Hell, if you think transfers of money are speech, you're an asshole. Edited February 4, 2012 by Mr. GOH! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 It's not even an attack piece. Komen's website was hacked edit: defaced (they thought it was a hack at the time), There was a large public outcry. It's a simple piece calling out those people for being fools. I'm not sure how an article calling people fools can ever be anything but an attack piece. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Komen has always been awful. The amount they spend on administration and suing other non-profits is indefensible. Well at least according to Charity navigator PP is actually worse then Komen when it comes to administration fees. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4338 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Komen has always been awful. The amount they spend on administration and suing other non-profits is indefensible. Well at least according to Charity navigator PP is actually worse then Komen when it comes to administration fees. http://www.charityna...mary&orgid=4509 http://www.charityna...mary&orgid=4338 Check it again. Planned Parenthood: Administrative Costs 9.6% ($7,688,063) Komen: Administrative Costs 11.8% ($37,629,831) So perhaps you looked at those backwards. Interestingly, Komen appears to be running a deficit while PP has a decent excess. Maybe something to do with spending thirty seven and a half million on clerk work...? Edited February 4, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Komen has always been awful. The amount they spend on administration and suing other non-profits is indefensible. Well at least according to Charity navigator PP is actually worse then Komen when it comes to administration fees. http://www.charityna...mary&orgid=4509 http://www.charityna...mary&orgid=4338 Check it again. Planned Parenthood: Administrative Costs 9.6% ($7,688,063) Komen: Administrative Costs 11.8% ($37,629,831) So perhaps you looked at those backwards. Interestingly, Komen appears to be running a deficit while PP has a decent excess. Maybe something to do with spending thirty seven and a half million on clerk work...? If you'd bother to check the methodology you'd notice that they scale it based on the type of charity work because some charity requires more administration than others. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48 Seriously, are you just trying to be argumentative? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 It's a discussion forum. Accusing people of being argumentative in response to them pointing out seeming flaws in your data just seems overly defensive and silly. Maybe if you'd have pointed the methodology out beforehand, people would have read it before responding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) He didn't point out flaws in my data. It's not my data. He clearly didn't read the methodology or even bother to look at any other numbers in the write ups. He took a value out of context to be argumentative in order to backup someone else's completely erroneous statement. Edited February 4, 2012 by Yantelope V2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Fine then, it's not your data but rather the data you're presenting as evidence of your claim. I looked at the data you initially put forward and came to the same conclusion as Six did, hence my upvoting of his post. I can not speak for Six, but in my case I did not do so in an effort to be argumentative, but rather it genuinely looked like you were presenting one set of data and drawing a conclusion counter to what the data said. Regarding the link you have since submitted, I can not comment on it because it is admittedly beyond my full comprehension. Additionally, I am not sure how the data provided shows that Mr. GOH's statement is erroneous, even if it shows, as you are claiming, that "PP is actually worse then Komen when it comes to administration fees." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.