By Jennie

This past week’s controversy over the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood has uncovered cracks in the reputation of this popular and highly visible charity.

On Tuesday, the foundation announced that it was cutting funding that allowed Planned Parenthood to perform 170,000 clinical breast examinations and 6,400 mammogram referrals over the past five years. A Komen spokesperson denied that the funding cut was political, claiming instead that the organization has a policy against funding organizations under governmental investigation. This was quickly discovered to be untrue, as Komen was still funding other organizations under investigation (including Penn State). Critics of the foundation questioned whether the defunding decision had anything to do with Komen’s recently hired Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Karen Handel, who had previously run for governor of Georgia on an anti-abortion platform. During her unsuccessful campaign, Handel had advocated for the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Handel herself added fuel to a steadily growing fire on Wednesday by tweeting “Cry me a freaking river”, various Komen representatives spent the next two days unable to get their stories straight, and by Friday, the foundation had backed down and announced that it was reinstating PP’s funding.

All’s well that ends well, right?

Well, not quite. Not only was the entire episode a PR debacle for Komen, disproving the old chesnut, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity,” it brought some truths, speculation and opinions to the fore that the foundation would probably have preferred to keep quiet, such as:

· The perception of the Susan G. Komen Foundation as a conservative organization. The founder of Komen is a major Republican donor. In addition to Karen Handel, one of the foundation’s board members is known to be virulently anti-abortion. Additionally, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer was apparently involved in the hiring of Handel; during the hiring process he allegedly grilled interviewees about the relationship between Komen and PP and how they would handle a break from PP. This obviously may not be a negative and indeed may be a positive for some people, but anytime a non-political organization is perceived as having a political slant or leaning, they are at risk of alienating a segment of potential donors. With the decision to defund PP and the revelations about the makeup of the organization, that is exactly what Komen has done.
· The charge that Komen as an organization has become about self-promotion and fundraising for its own sake rather than about curing breast cancer. The foundation vigorously denies any links between chemicals suspected of causing cancer (like BPA), even though numerous studies have established these links. Critics charge that regular donations to Komen from such corporations as Coca-Cola (i.e. corporations that use the chemicals alleged to cause cancer) are the reason for the foundation’s refusal to acknowledge the link. Further, Komen comes off as a bully when suing smaller organizations for using their trademarked phrase “for the cure” – they spent over a million dollars filing such suits in 2010.
· The way they distribute their money, with almost 40% (in 2010) going to “public health awareness” and a little over half that (not quite 21%) going to research. An organization that so energetically defends its “for the cure” slogan should be putting more of its money towards a cure, no? To spend so much more on “awareness” (not to say that such an effort has no value, but who is not “aware” of breast cancer at this point?) suggests that the organization valued spending money on visible efforts that would in turn generate more donations, rather than the grinding and perhaps less glamorous work of research, though the latter is the only one of the two likely to produce a cure.
· There are a lot of questions about the value of Komen’s ubiquitous pink ribbons. The ribbons are seen by some as nothing more than a marketing ploy between Komen and their corporate partners to tout the companies’ philanthropy. There are also those that feel that the ribbons trivialize the seriousness of the issue, a phenomenon known as “pinkwashing.” Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that the foundation is not at all discerning in choosing their partners; apparently the only criteria is a willingness to donate a portion of the proceeds for the sale of the pink-beribboned items to Komen. This has lead to partnerships with Estee Lauder, whose cosmetics allegedly contain carcinogens, Yoplait, whose yogurt contains milk altered with bovine growth hormones, and KFC, in spite of the known links between fat and breast cancer, as well as other serious health problems.

It remains to be seen whether the foundation can bounce back from last week’s fiasco. Certainly, the political nature of the controversy has brought some conservatives rushing to Komen’s defense, but it remains to be seen whether that defense will translate into donations. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has reported a definite rise in donations in the past week; they may be the real winners here, and with them the many women who depend on PP for birth control, breast cancer screening, STD treatment and prevention, PAP smears and other women’s health services that compromise well over 90% of the services they provide.

Josh Powell and his two sons have been confirmed dead in an explosion in Powell’s home near Tacoma, Washington earlier today. Josh Powell has been a person of interest in the disappearance of his wife, Susan Powell, in December of 2009.

The Pierce County Sheriff’s Office has confirmed that the explosion was intentionally set by Powell. They do not believe anyone else was in the house at the time.

CNN reports that a case worker had just dropped off Powell’s sons at the home for a supervised visit at around 12:45 p.m. Washington time. Powell was somehow able to get his sons in the house and block the case worker from entering. The case worker smelled gas and shortly after an explosion occurred.

The two sons were in the custody of their maternal grandparents and earlier this week Josh Powell had been told that the boys would remain in the custody of their grandparents. He was to get visitation but also was ordered to undergo a psycho-sexual evaluation and a polygraph.

Powell lost custody of his sons in September of 2011 after his father, Steve Powell, was arrested and charged with possessing child pornography. He has denied any wrongdoing in the disappearance of his wife however police say they were making progress in their case against him.

Law makers have recently expressed their concerns about Google’s updated privacy policy, prompting the company to respond on Tuesday in a letter addressing the concerns that merely reiterated the points they have already made in official statements and on their own blogs.

Republican representative Cliff Stearns of Florida, the chairman of the House subcommittee on oversight and investigations, and Democrat Henry Waxman of California of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, were primarily concerned, and expressed their reservations in a letter to Larry Page, Google’s chief executive. It was this letter that prompted the one from Google this week.

The brouhaha is concerned with the search engine giant’s recent announcement that it intended to consolidate its privacy policy between its many subsidiaries, which include Gmail and YouTube.  These changes have alarmed many users, as there is no way to opt out except by cancelling every service all together, and the new policy involved sharing user account information between most of the services Google offers.  Theoretically, this would allow the company to tailor its advertisements to specific users.  Pablo Chavez, Google’s director of Public Policy, has responded that the company understands why its users are concerned, but that the real issue lies with the choices users have about how data belonging to them is collected and how that data is then utilized.

Google currently claims that it is not possible for someone to log in to any of their services and not consent to sharing their information.  Google Search, YouTube, and Google Maps, however, will still function after March 1^st without requiring users to log in.  One suggestion offered by Google was that users create multiple accounts in order to avoid sharing information from their private lives that they would rather not have publicized.

According to Google, this unification of sixty of its services, thus putting them all under one privacy policy, was a decision made after recommendations from privacy experts hailing from all corners of the globe.  There have been many requests from these experts for companies to simplify the language in their privacy policies so they are more accessible and easier to understand by the common user.

Google’s letter also spoke to concerns expressed about the privacy of teenage users.  Their response has been to offer younger browsers guidance within the services themselves that will offer help to people not as familiar or secure with the internet on the ways to protect their privacy.  It will also make sure that settings can be of a more conservative nature designed to make certain that teenagers are not exposed to adult or offensive content.

Many users have reportedly expressed the opinion that they would rather leave Google’s services completely than be subject to this kind of privacy policy, which may push the company to question whether all the flak from this particular announcement is worth it, particularly in the light of its very public (and often not very pretty) competition with Facebook and Twitter, which has come about after Google developed its own social networking site, Google+.

Evan Fischer is a contributing writer for Orlando DUI Law Firm – Lawyers in Orlando FL , a team of dedicated and experienced DUI attorneys based in Orlando, Florida.

UMICH.edu

After President Obama recently announced his plan to require that colleges and universities contain their tuition costs or face losing federal money, those heads of bastions of higher learning are all in a tizzy, citing over-involvement from the government.  But are their fears warranted?  After all, they have already been subject to severe state budget cuts in recent years.

And change isn’t that simple, according to Al Bowman of Illinois State, who feels that the deficit faced by most public schools cannot be so easily overcome.  He cited “fuzzy math” as part of Obama’s rationale for the plan, as decreases in state aid have made it a leap to tie federal support to tuition prices.  Illinois State, which has over twenty thousand students, has been forced to raise their tuition over forty five percent since 2007, from roughly $6,000 for an instate undergraduate to nearly $10,000.

Bowman’s response to Obama’s plan included his belief that the President assumes that universities should be more efficient, thereby operating with tinier state subsidies, and while more efficient states could be realized, those standards will be impossible to meet because of the loss of state financial support.

His suggestions include hiring more part-time or adjunct faculty and increasing class sizes, but that those efficient tactics would dilute the quality of education, which no one wants, especially as the U.S. has been roundly criticized as of late for lagging behind the rest of the global community, especially in the areas of math and science.

Mike Young, the president of the University of Washington, spoke out about Obama’s obvious lack of background knowledge or understanding of how the budgets at public universities function.  Universities are forced to tighten their belts, while the state is cutting subsidies and hiking up the cost of tuition to try to make up for extra efficiencies.

Obama’s plan, however, needs to be approved by Congress, which will be difficult to attain as partisan gridlock takes its toll.

During his State of the Union address, the President spoke about his many talks with university presidents who attempted to explain how technology has been helping to cut costs and spending, as well as course redesigns that are trying to get students out the door more quickly.  Obama spoke about his belief that, if more universities took these approaches, the end result would be more efficient and less expensive for everyone.

This announcement has been popular with students, however, who have complained about tuition hikes and the price of their loans for years.  Attending college has become so cost prohibitive that many Americans are questioning the value of higher education.  Of course, they may also turn to options such as applying for navy scholarships or undertaking a military education to help pay for school.  But for many, the army simply isn’t an option.

The bottom line for colleges and schools, according to President Obama, is that tuition hikes must stop, that they can’t assume that they’ll be able to make big increases every year.  Tuition prices must go down, the President said, or state funding will.

Evan Fischer is a freelance writer and part-time student at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, California.

While animal rights activism isn’t usually a subject that gets the blood boiling in Republican voters, many animal owners were appalled to learn that their top tier Presidential candidate, former MA governor Mitt Romney, was once accused of canine abuse toward his own family pet, an Irish Setter named Seamus.

This story has been reported many times in recent years. It was big media news in 2007 during the Republican primaries. With Romney once again considered a front-runner in the GOP primaries, the story has re-emerged with many asking the question:

Does America want a President who is capable of abusing a family pet?

It was 1983, and Gov. Romney took his family on a 12 hour road trip from their home in Massachusetts. Seamus, their four-legged family member, was along for the ride. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough room for Seamus inside of the vehicle. Instead of making room for the pet, Romney placed the poor creature inside of a dog carrier strapped to the roof of the vehicle traveling at highway speeds of 60-70 MPH or more.

Not surprisingly, in the course of the 12 hour long drive, canine excrement covered the roof and windows of the vehicle as the animal went into a terrifying shock and relieved himself inside of his carrier.

Aside from the emotional terror of being trapped in a tiny box with the wind in your face for 12 hours, let’s cover the true science behind this situation and what the dog actually experienced on top of the Romney family car.

According to aerospace engineering experts, at the speeds the vehicle was traveling, poor Seamus would’ve had 10 lbs of pressure per square foot beating against his little head. While the windshield would’ve still protected the front of the poor creature, the air surrounding him would’ve been so intense, little Seamus would’ve become physically exhausted.

Additionally, veterinarians expressed concern that the dog could’ve been severely dehydrated by the experience, and experts say that the very act of tying an animal to the outside of the car was illegal.

The incident itself has painted family values presidential candidate Romney in a very bad light. However, the news of this road trip broke because the former governor told the story to a local newspaper indicating that his ability to handle the situation in a calm, collected manner demonstrated a necessary Presidential quality of “emotion-free crisis management.” Romney’s desire to show that he can keep cool in a tough situation backfired, according to many Americans, depicting Romney as an unfeeling, despicable animal abuser.

So, the question remains. As Romney still sits comfortably as a top tier GOP Presidential candidate in the primaries, is a nation of people who consider their pets to be family ready to vote for a President who once put his own family dog in a life-threatening, emotionally and physically abusive situation? Do we even want to consider him as an option when he had the audacity to brag about the situation to a local newspaper?

Jennifer Kilkenny is a freelance writer and web professional who has published numerous articles online.  Her portfolio can be viewed here.