Interesting and revealing. Livestrong no longer gives actual grants for actual cancer research, instead focusing on "awareness." Komen gives out millions for research. And yet Livestrong decides to prop up Planned Parenthood so they can continue to do abortions, and refer women to other facilities for mammograms. Wow. Those facilities exist with or without without Planned Parenthood. Poor women have resources beyond Planned Parenthood for true preventive health services. Komen's dollars are going toward actual research and actual mammograms. Sad, really, about Livestrong. But now I know and my wallet will be targeted accordingly.
Considering Mr. Armstrong's dalliances with a number of women who are not his wife, I could see how he might be interested in supporting some of the services Planned Parenthood offers.
This entire contretemps has been a great awakening for me, as I have come to learn about other organizations (including the Girl Scouts) that give money to Planned Parenthood.
Two questions come to mind:
(1) Is anyone out there (in the pro-life movement) keeping score on the non-profits and corporations that are giving money to PP? As individuals and as members of groups (including parishes), we need to act accordingly and make sure that our support is not going to groups that are cooperating with PP.
(2) Conversely, is anyone keeping score of non-profits and corporations that support pro-life causes? I have in mind the positive example of a company -- Curves -- that owns and runs workout centers for women, and which I believe has gotten a lot of business from women pro-lifers in recent years.
Well, to his (and perhaps Bloomberg's) credit, the donations are claimed to be going to a fund restricted to the provision of cancer screening services. Cancer is a common enemy of all of us and we should work to eradicate it without regard to each other's political viewpoints, and as long as the money isn't used for abortion I can keep my moral high dudgeon on low outrage.
That said, Lance has been accused of using his foundation and his anti-cancer activities as a cover for doping and other bad deeds. In that he's a sort of strange bedfellow with Planned Parenthood, which pretty clearly uses some minimal amount of cancer screening referrals ($380k worth over two years?) as a cover for their primary activity as an abortion mill.
I disagree that donating to a set-aside fund for Planned Parenthood to use only on cancer screenings somehow makes this money clean. Given PP's prominent role in the abortion industry, any association with it by outside groups not involved in the business of abortion gives PP a patina of moral legitimacy to other external groups, gives PP cover when it is pointed out that it blood on its hands is pointed out, and provides another means through which to get women in its clinics and accustomed to thinking that abortion is just another service akin to mammograms. Why bother with PP at all when there are other means of funding need-based breast cancer screenings?
As an aside, I think it's fascinating to look at how Armstrong is treated generally compared to how Mark McGuire, or even Barry Bonds is treated, generally. An honest reading of the public domain information that is available on Armstrong's alleged doping - much of it provided under penalty of perjury - could lead any fair-minded person to conclude that not only did Armstrong dope, but he did it serially over a period of two-decades.
How is Lance Armstrong protected by this invisible cloak of non-judgement but McGuire is all but persona non grata? It's odd. Sports writers love to opine about the asterisk that needs to be placed on all baseball records for the last 15-years - McGuires' in particular - but I don't know if I have ever read a similar sentiment written about Armstrong's Tour de France wins, and that's equally odd.
I have to say, because I've been operating under the impression that Armstrong was conservative (something I saw somewhere gave me that impression, and since I really don't care one way or the other, I never bothered to learn the truth) I had the impression that the attacks on him were unfair and driven by jealousy. But now that I know that he's a raging leftist, it all makes sense - of course he was doping! - living lies is what leftist do!
"How is Lance Armstrong protected by this invisible cloak of non-judgement but McGuire is all but persona non grata?"
How often was McGuire ever tested in his career? How often was Armstrong tested during a single Tour de France? The numbers aren't even close.
I'm an avid cycling fan, have been for years. I still can't quite jump on the "Armstrong raced dirty" bandwagon knowing how often cyclists are tested. But I also know how they are able to cover up, so I'm not on the "Armstrong raced clean" bandwagon either. The McGuire comparison doesn't hold up simply based on the level of testing in cycling versus baseball during that period.
All that being said, Livestrong is a fraudulent organization (in my opinion). They exist to further the Lance Armstrong brand.
Those are fair points. But, did McGuire ever test positive (yes, I know, there wasn't testing during his career)? I'm just pointing out that all we had against McGuire (until the time of his admission), was his word against everyone else's. I would underscore the fact that absent someone coming forward and dropping a dime on Balco, it's reasonably likely that they still wouldn't have a test for what McGuire was using.
Back to Armonstrong...while it's true that Armstrong has never tested dirty (perhaps for the reason you point out), you would have to believe an incredible amount of people are conspiring against him. I'm just not that big a conspiracy theorist.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other - either about McGuire or Armstrong. I don't really think the doping casts a shadow on either of the accomplishments because what has become incredibly clear in hindsight is that everyone was doping. In Armstrong's case, everyone he was cycling against was getting a chemical edge, and in McGuire's case, it's pretty clear that not only were the other batters juicing, but so were the pitchers.
I do think Armstrong has benefit insomuch that no one has ever hauled him in front of a Congressional committee where he had pressure to plead the 5th, yet. That testimony that McGuire gave - or more correctly, didn't give - really deflated his balloon, and gave writers the cover they needed to tear him a new one.
So, how do we handle pre-natal cancer patients in Armstrong's view? If his goal (according to the Livestrong website) is to "empower the cancer community to address the unmet needs of cancer survivors", there can be no "survivor" of an abortion...Is that his position? That pre natal cancer patients should be aborted in order to protect them from a world of "uinmet needs"? If I were a Livestrong donor, I would be infuriated that my funds for the (seemingly) noble goal of supporting cancer survivors was being diverted a) to an organization that does not have the same goal and b) in some cases has goals that are 180 degrees opposite of that goal.
My son loves live strong apparel. no more. I'll go with under armor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes he still get money from the US Postal Service?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusetypo negative, KJ ($100,000)
you can delete this when fixed...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is useful reading for all potential Livestrong contributors.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat link, Living. Thanks!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting and revealing. Livestrong no longer gives actual grants for actual cancer research, instead focusing on "awareness." Komen gives out millions for research. And yet Livestrong decides to prop up Planned Parenthood so they can continue to do abortions, and refer women to other facilities for mammograms. Wow. Those facilities exist with or without without Planned Parenthood. Poor women have resources beyond Planned Parenthood for true preventive health services. Komen's dollars are going toward actual research and actual mammograms. Sad, really, about Livestrong. But now I know and my wallet will be targeted accordingly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConsidering Mr. Armstrong's dalliances with a number of women who are not his wife, I could see how he might be interested in supporting some of the services Planned Parenthood offers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis entire contretemps has been a great awakening for me, as I have come to learn about other organizations (including the Girl Scouts) that give money to Planned Parenthood.
Two questions come to mind:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(1) Is anyone out there (in the pro-life movement) keeping score on the non-profits and corporations that are giving money to PP? As individuals and as members of groups (including parishes), we need to act accordingly and make sure that our support is not going to groups that are cooperating with PP.
(2) Conversely, is anyone keeping score of non-profits and corporations that support pro-life causes? I have in mind the positive example of a company -- Curves -- that owns and runs workout centers for women, and which I believe has gotten a lot of business from women pro-lifers in recent years.
Well, to his (and perhaps Bloomberg's) credit, the donations are claimed to be going to a fund restricted to the provision of cancer screening services. Cancer is a common enemy of all of us and we should work to eradicate it without regard to each other's political viewpoints, and as long as the money isn't used for abortion I can keep my moral high dudgeon on low outrage.
That said, Lance has been accused of using his foundation and his anti-cancer activities as a cover for doping and other bad deeds. In that he's a sort of strange bedfellow with Planned Parenthood, which pretty clearly uses some minimal amount of cancer screening referrals ($380k worth over two years?) as a cover for their primary activity as an abortion mill.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree that donating to a set-aside fund for Planned Parenthood to use only on cancer screenings somehow makes this money clean. Given PP's prominent role in the abortion industry, any association with it by outside groups not involved in the business of abortion gives PP a patina of moral legitimacy to other external groups, gives PP cover when it is pointed out that it blood on its hands is pointed out, and provides another means through which to get women in its clinics and accustomed to thinking that abortion is just another service akin to mammograms. Why bother with PP at all when there are other means of funding need-based breast cancer screenings?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs an aside, I think it's fascinating to look at how Armstrong is treated generally compared to how Mark McGuire, or even Barry Bonds is treated, generally. An honest reading of the public domain information that is available on Armstrong's alleged doping - much of it provided under penalty of perjury - could lead any fair-minded person to conclude that not only did Armstrong dope, but he did it serially over a period of two-decades.
How is Lance Armstrong protected by this invisible cloak of non-judgement but McGuire is all but persona non grata? It's odd. Sports writers love to opine about the asterisk that needs to be placed on all baseball records for the last 15-years - McGuires' in particular - but I don't know if I have ever read a similar sentiment written about Armstrong's Tour de France wins, and that's equally odd.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to say, because I've been operating under the impression that Armstrong was conservative (something I saw somewhere gave me that impression, and since I really don't care one way or the other, I never bothered to learn the truth) I had the impression that the attacks on him were unfair and driven by jealousy. But now that I know that he's a raging leftist, it all makes sense - of course he was doping! - living lies is what leftist do!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is parody, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"How is Lance Armstrong protected by this invisible cloak of non-judgement but McGuire is all but persona non grata?"
How often was McGuire ever tested in his career? How often was Armstrong tested during a single Tour de France? The numbers aren't even close.
I'm an avid cycling fan, have been for years. I still can't quite jump on the "Armstrong raced dirty" bandwagon knowing how often cyclists are tested. But I also know how they are able to cover up, so I'm not on the "Armstrong raced clean" bandwagon either. The McGuire comparison doesn't hold up simply based on the level of testing in cycling versus baseball during that period.
All that being said, Livestrong is a fraudulent organization (in my opinion). They exist to further the Lance Armstrong brand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose are fair points. But, did McGuire ever test positive (yes, I know, there wasn't testing during his career)? I'm just pointing out that all we had against McGuire (until the time of his admission), was his word against everyone else's. I would underscore the fact that absent someone coming forward and dropping a dime on Balco, it's reasonably likely that they still wouldn't have a test for what McGuire was using.
Back to Armonstrong...while it's true that Armstrong has never tested dirty (perhaps for the reason you point out), you would have to believe an incredible amount of people are conspiring against him. I'm just not that big a conspiracy theorist.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other - either about McGuire or Armstrong. I don't really think the doping casts a shadow on either of the accomplishments because what has become incredibly clear in hindsight is that everyone was doping. In Armstrong's case, everyone he was cycling against was getting a chemical edge, and in McGuire's case, it's pretty clear that not only were the other batters juicing, but so were the pitchers.
I do think Armstrong has benefit insomuch that no one has ever hauled him in front of a Congressional committee where he had pressure to plead the 5th, yet. That testimony that McGuire gave - or more correctly, didn't give - really deflated his balloon, and gave writers the cover they needed to tear him a new one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLooks like Armstrong is off the hook.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's for over-the-counter steroid sales.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, how do we handle pre-natal cancer patients in Armstrong's view? If his goal (according to the Livestrong website) is to "empower the cancer community to address the unmet needs of cancer survivors", there can be no "survivor" of an abortion...Is that his position? That pre natal cancer patients should be aborted in order to protect them from a world of "uinmet needs"? If I were a Livestrong donor, I would be infuriated that my funds for the (seemingly) noble goal of supporting cancer survivors was being diverted a) to an organization that does not have the same goal and b) in some cases has goals that are 180 degrees opposite of that goal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse