Rage Against The Pink

Next topic up in the "Ada has opinions series": Breast Cancer Awareness Month!

(You guys, I'm sorry, I have lots of opinions this October. Starting next week, I promise, there will be a return to the soft-hitting, easy-going, heartwarming, downright cozy content you've grown accustomed to on Of Woods and Words.)

I think we can all agree that the world would be a better place without breast cancer. But lately, I've been feeling a little "pinked out." Here's what's been bugging me about the pinkwashing that's been going on this October.

What the heck is up with the NFL's pink shoes?! 

Source

This NFL season I've watched approximately 30 seconds of football action. And during those 30 seconds I shocked to see all the players running around in pink apparel on a field stamped with pink breast cancer awareness ribbons. I get that the juxtaposition of big burly guys advocating for a cause as delicate and feminine as breast cancer is supposed to make us stop and think about the cause, but something about the whole scene didn't sit right with me.

As a friend posted on Facebook earlier this month: "I personally would be more impressed if the NFL gave the money they spend on all the pink gear to the charity-- what a waste." 

Yes, she and I both know that the pink NFL items will get auctioned off and the proceeds will be donated to charity, but it still feels like a racket to me. 

To me, altruism works best when done quietly. If you broadcast your generosity (like NFL is doing with all that pink gear) then ego is coming into play and the motivation for your generosity starts getting the side eye from people like me. Give because you care about a cause, not because you think it'll be good for business.

Buy purchasing this product, .00099876 % of proceeds will be donated to breast cancer research.

Thank you for using your potentially cancer causing product to promote cancer awareness

 (Source)

I was driving home last week when I heard a commercial on radio offering 20% off a weight loss plan "in honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month?" Wait, what?! I thought I needed my ears cleaned, but then they said it again, "20% off during the month of October in honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month."   

Now I know that obesity is a contributing factor in many breast cancer cases, but there are a lot of other reasons to maintain a healthy weight and using breast cancer as a way to promote your weight loss product feels like corporate America is making a profit on the back of someone else's misfortune.

There are so many pink products out there with the promise of giving some amount of their profits  back to a breast cancer research foundation. But would we have so many supposedly charitable products out there if this cancer had nothing to do with women's breasts or if the awareness color wasn't pink?

Breasts/sex sells. Pink sells. 

But there are all sorts of un-sexy cancers out there. Lung cancer is a cause much nearer and dearer to my heart than breast cancer, but I just had to google when lung cancer awareness month even is. (FYI: it's November.) We all know that pink is the color of breast cancer awareness, but most of us would be hard-pressed to name the color of ribbons appropriate for colon, prostate, stomach or any other cancer awareness. And there aren't too many products out there that promise to donate a portion of their proceeds to other cancer research funds. So stop using my potentially cancerous boobs to make money already!

Btw, here's a great list of pink items to avoid this October.

Susan G. Komen Foundation

Perhaps my biggest issue with Breast Cancer Awareness Month this year is the month's close association with the Susan G. Komen Foundation. I'm still livid about the foundation's (albeit, temporary) move this January to cut off  funding to Planned Parenthood. For years, Komen have provided grants to Planned Parenthood to make Planned Parenthood clinics places where women with little to no health insurance can go for an affordable breast exam and/or mammogram. But when Komen started getting a little heat from the pro-life contingency in Washington, suddenly, Komen balked and decided they no longer wanted to be associated with Planned Parenthood. Let's all start making chicken noises, shall we? I'm still so mad, I won't even buy Yoplait (and its pink caps) any more.

I've had issues with the Komen foundation long before the Planne Parenthood debacle of January/February 2012. Komen has been a notable bully in the cancer fundraising world, working to make sure they're the only organization that can use the "for the Cure" slogan for their fundraising events. This means they've actually pulled legal action against small fundraisers such as a local dog sled fundraiser called "Mush for a Cure" which, to date, has donated more than $100,000 to the National Breast Cancer Foundation.Um, yeah, that's a good use of your donated funds . . . .

Susan G. Komen Foundation takes offense to this fundraiser

Lastly, Komen, which is by far the most recognizable name in breast cancer fundraising and research, contributes a mere 21% of their budget to actual research. Which basically means that for every 10 Yoplait yogurts I buy used to buy with pink caps, only a little more than 2 of those caps make any difference in the actual fight against breast cancer. *cue sad, disappointed music*
 
Moral of the story?

I think we can all agree that breast cancer is bad. Really bad. But you know what's even worse? All cancer. Let's ditch the pink and focus on finding a cure for all cancers by giving our funds directly foundations who are good stewards of that money.


  
P.S. Here's a link to about the only legitimate breast cancer awareness material that should be kept circulating all year long: How to perform a breast self-exam.

Read more ...

Who Has Two Thumbs and Likes Voting?

This guy!

It's true, I love voting. I love doing my civic duty. It makes me feel all accomplished and proud to be an American. (I am not however proud that whenever I say I'm proud to be an American, I hear Lee Greenwood singing "God Bless the U.S.A." in my head. I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm freeeeeeeee.)

Over the last couple weeks, Andy and I have been anxiously awaiting the arrival of our mail ballots. Because our county is so rural, the county made a switch to mail ballots for all residents except those who live immediately in the county seat long before I started voting. It's a pretty handy system. We get our ballots a couple weeks before the election, have the ballots witnessed by another registered MN voter (or a notary) and then make sure the ballots are mailed in by election day. It's a system that makes it really easy to participate in the democratic system (and shouldn't a democratic system be easy to participate in if it's to function properly?) and as far as I can tell, it's almost impossible to commit voter fraud since you only get one ballot per registered voter. I suppose I could show up at an actual polling station and try to vote again, but honestly, voting once enough for this gal.

I filled out my ballot last night and today my ballot will be winging its way down to the courthouse to be opened and counted on election day. There are a lot of issues and races on the 2012 ballot that I care passionately about, but there's one particular ballot question that's really got my teeth on edge:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?" 

Let's look at this carefully. On the surface, this looks pretty reasonable. Benign, even.

I mean, I'm a U.S. citizen and I have a photo id, so this shouldn't affect me at all. But wait a minute, when I cast my vote last night, I didn't show a photo id to anyone. I show Andy my blank ballot, I filled out the ballot privately, and then Andy witnessed it.

If this amendment passes, it could mean the end of mail ballots. It could mean that I have to show up at a polling station on election day to cast my vote. Let's consider that the nearest polling station to me is 55 miles away. Let's also remember that early November is not exactly known for sterling weather. In future years, if this amendment passes and if we happened to have a massive snow storm on election day, there's a good chance that I won't cast my vote that year.

Allow me to toot my horn for a little bit here to illustrate my point:

• I have a college education.
• I have voted in every election since I became eligible. (Except for this year's primaries, which caught me by surprise - why so early with the primaries this year Minnesota?)
• I have watched the Republican nomination process from the get-go, listened to both the Democratic and Republican conventions, and have listened to every presidential debate this year. 
• I am not a felon. 
• I wouldn't know how to commit voter fraud even if I wanted to commit some.

As a state, we should not be making it harder for voters like me to vote. We should not be making it harder for minorities and seniors to vote. If anything, we should be making it easier for people to vote. This is America after all, where we value everyone's voice. Right? Right?!

The biggest issue I have with this potential constitution amendment is that we have absolutely no idea what ramifications would come with passing of this amendment. We don't know if it would mean the end of mail ballots. We don't know if the county would have to spend funds they don't really have to construct more polling stations - which would have to have handicapped bathrooms and various other amenities to make them legal polling stations. We're not even sure what constitutes a valid photo id. All we know is that we'd have to show id before we vote, but we don't even know how we'd have to show voter id.

As Mary Jane Morrison, a Hamline Law Professor, said about this amendment, "This deserves an F."

Proponents of this bill say it will cut down on voter fraud. But I've yet to hear any terribly compelling numbers and arguments about voter fraud in Minnesota.   

If you ask me, this has more to do with Republicans consistently losing elections by itty bitty margins (i.e. Coleman vs. Franken, Emmer vs. Dayton) then it does about cracking down on voter fraud. Heck, if the Republicans just get rid of a few hundred voters by passing this amendment, maybe the votes in these tight races will start tipping in their favor. 

Cynical, much?

But this shouldn't be a partisan issue. This is an issue that will effect every voter in Minnesota. And if you have two thumbs and like voting, please consider this amendment carefully before voting. This is a very vague amendment that could have negative repercussions for all of us. 


   

Read more ...

Because Video Didn't Kill the Radio Star

If Andy had it his way, we would never turn off the radio in the cabin. I structure my Saturdays around listening to Car Talk and Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, and I try to catch This American Life, The Splendid Table, and Marketplace Money as well. We don't have a t.v. (just Netflix) so we depend on both the local community radio station and NPR to supply our daily dose of news. Radio was an important component of my childhood and it remains important to me to this day.

The U.S. Congress has recently  introduced not one, not two, but three bills to cut federal funding for the country's public broadcasting services. These services reach out to approximately 170 million Americans every month.

Colorado Representative Doug Lamborn, one of the movers and shakers behind these bills, seems to view public broadcasting as archaic and has stated: The original purpose of federal funding for CPB in 1967 is no longer relevant. The intent of federally-funded public broadcasting was to make “telecommunications services available to all citizens of the United States.” Today, over 99 percent of Americans own a TV and over 95 percent have access to the Internet. In a world of 500-channel cable TV, streaming radio over the Internet, and cell phone Internet access, government-funded broadcasting is completely unnecessary.

As a resident of a rural area, about half of his argument above doesn't pertain to life around here. I can't stream radio over the internet. We don't have cell phone service. And somehow, having all my news come to via private news organizations, like, oh, I don't know, FOX, doesn't seem like the best idea. 

Remember that line from John Mayer's song "Waiting on the World to Change?" Because when they own the information, oh, they can bend it all they want.  

If we remove all venues for unbiased reporting, like NPR and local independent broadcasting services, that means all our information will come to us through a glass darkly. As a writer, I find the prospect of living in a world where objectivity is unnecessary and fact checking "a waste of time" down right terrifying. As educated citizens, we desire to know both sides of the story before we make up our minds and opinions. It  is our responsibility as free-thinkers to foster as many forums for thought as possible. We should have the opportunity to blog, and write letters to the editor, and pen radio commentaries to our heart's content.

If you feel radio is an important part of your daily life, I encourage you to join me in the 170 Million Americans for Public Broadcasting campaign.This is not plea for your personal monies (let's be honest, we heard enough of those pleas from public broadcasting) and the campaign promises to treat your personal information with care and integrity. This is your chance to stand up and be counted as a public broadcasting beneficiary. If you learned your alphabet from Sesame Street, if you tune into the local radio station for weather alerts, this is a campaign for you.

After all, public broadcasting has always been about making your voice heard.

Read more ...

Movin' to Canada

 

No Kim and Lisa, don’t get excited. I am not, in actuality, moving to Canada. Instead, I’m invoking the time worn phrase muttered so frequently over the years in the days following an election that hasn't gone in your favor. You know, when you mutter under your breath “if things don’t shape up in this country, I’m moving to Canada.”

Not to turn this blog into a running commentary on my political beliefs, but let’s just say yesterday’s election was a disappointment. The likely recount of the Minnesota governor’s race likely  is a frustration. I don’t care which side of the political fence you sit on, or even if you sit on the fence, after the eight month long recount in Minnesota for the 2008 U.S. Senate seat, Minnesotans just aren't getting excited about recounts anymore. “How long is this going to take,” we all groan.

As an aside on the whole “let have a recount” mentality, Anne Lamott writes that the counterpart to faith is certainty. It makes me wonder: if we weren’t so certain that something terrible had happened during the voting process, if we had faith that things went all right the first go round, just what sort of state would this country be in? What would happen if we could remove just a teeny weeny bit the hysteria that seems to be dictating our actions as a nation?

Anyway, back to the whole Canada issue . . . .

I got to thinking . . . . Canada really isn’t that far off. In fact, the lake I worked on all summer is an international lake: the Canadian border runs smack dab down the middle of the lake. I’ve spent the last year pretty much in spitting distance from Canada. I mean, I could set up camp on the north side of the lake and just motor on down to the museum every morning next summer. It would be like nothing had changed at all . . . .

But isn’t that part of the whole problem?

If we keep calling for change but instead opt for the path of least resistance over and over again for ourselves, then we’re not really changing anything. “Watching our backs” doesn’t do anyone much good. Setting up camp in Canada might make me feel better about myself, but no one likes a quitter.

I don’t know what needs to happen to get the country “back on track.” I don’t know that anyone does. But I do know that getting up and fighting for what we believe to be true is the only way to actually change things. And I know that change can be slow and ugly and demand a lot of hard work. And I know what’s good change for one person is bad for another. We’re not all ever going to be on the same page. That’s just not what democracy is about. Democracy is about sticking around, about not only believing that things will get better, but working to make things better.  

So I guess that means moving to Canada is O-U-T.

Rep. Jim Oberstar

Last but not least, thank you Representative Oberstar so much for your 35 years of service in Congress. I literally don’t know a MN Eighth Congressional District without you and as we push off into these uncertain times, I can say one thing for certain: we’ll miss you.

Read more ...