Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This Mom Is Sick & Tired of Gun Violence -- So She's Doing Something About It [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)73. OCT has been pretty thoroughly (and rightfully) slammed by everyone at DU
And MADD has devolved into neo-Prohibitionism
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/madds-new-focus-prohibition/Content?oid=2128464
MADDs new focus: Prohibition
By Barbara Hollingsworth
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is suffering from mission creep. A victim of its own success, the non-profit group is now pursuing Prohibitionist anti-alcohol policies such as calling for alcohol detectors in all cars instead of focusing on its original goal of reducing drunk driving deaths...
The biggest problem in reducing drunk driving fatalities now consists of the hard core of alcoholic drivers who repeatedly drive with BACs of .15 or higher, says Dr. David Hanson, professor emeritus at the State University of New York/Potsdam. But MADD has now decided to go after social drinkers and to eliminate driving after drinking any amount of alcohol beverage. This change appears to reflect the influence of a growing neo-prohibitionist movement within MADD.
The change in focus has been accompanied by a change in the way MADD spends donor funds. The American Institute of Philanthropy recently downgraded MADD to a D in its 2010 Charity Guide and Watchdog Report, citing the groups diminished focus on education and victim services in favor of fundraising and anti-drinking activism.
According to the AIP, MADD spent nearly double the average amount on fundraising, leaving just a little more than half of its revenue for programs. In 2008, despite declining revenue, two-thirds of its budget almost $30 million was spent on staff salaries (which increased 56 percent).
By Barbara Hollingsworth
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is suffering from mission creep. A victim of its own success, the non-profit group is now pursuing Prohibitionist anti-alcohol policies such as calling for alcohol detectors in all cars instead of focusing on its original goal of reducing drunk driving deaths...
The biggest problem in reducing drunk driving fatalities now consists of the hard core of alcoholic drivers who repeatedly drive with BACs of .15 or higher, says Dr. David Hanson, professor emeritus at the State University of New York/Potsdam. But MADD has now decided to go after social drinkers and to eliminate driving after drinking any amount of alcohol beverage. This change appears to reflect the influence of a growing neo-prohibitionist movement within MADD.
The change in focus has been accompanied by a change in the way MADD spends donor funds. The American Institute of Philanthropy recently downgraded MADD to a D in its 2010 Charity Guide and Watchdog Report, citing the groups diminished focus on education and victim services in favor of fundraising and anti-drinking activism.
According to the AIP, MADD spent nearly double the average amount on fundraising, leaving just a little more than half of its revenue for programs. In 2008, despite declining revenue, two-thirds of its budget almost $30 million was spent on staff salaries (which increased 56 percent).
So both of your analogies fail...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This Mom Is Sick & Tired of Gun Violence -- So She's Doing Something About It [View all]
SecularMotion
May 2014
OP
Shannon, please be careful. Too many gun fancier bullies out there that could act on their threats.
Hoyt
May 2014
#1
These cowardly bullies have already threatened her life (and others), spit on them, stuck guns
hlthe2b
May 2014
#2
Thing is, MADD doesn't blame sober drivers for the actions of drunk ones...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#41
OCT has been pretty thoroughly (and rightfully) slammed by everyone at DU
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#73
Keep on enbling and defending. The backlash will only intensify & the NRA knows it.
hlthe2b
Jun 2014
#79
"...(M)ay this woman and her organization achieve every bit the success of MADD"
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#83
Oopsie, looks like *someone* just posted an untruth- and it ain't me
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#84
You have been calling out those praising this woman and her gun control efforts throughout thread
hlthe2b
Jun 2014
#85
"I see in your last post you have changed your position." Wrong again
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#86
Read the post in context. The gun fools were trying to rationalize toting and blasting away
Hoyt
Jun 2014
#74
Nice of you to vouch for the behavior of your (hopefully former) cohorts
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#75
"Stop & Frisk" Bloomberg chose a former Monsanto director of public relations....
NYC_SKP
May 2014
#3
I suspect a "stay at home mom," without her background, would think going up against
Hoyt
May 2014
#8
It's rather more about *who* she worked for during her "succesful career",...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#71
So, what kind of resume would pass the purity test for a gun control advocate?
scarletwoman
Jun 2014
#19
"Former head of PR for Monsanto" wouldn't play too well with her new audience
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#32
"...I think her professionalism will be a plus for her when lobbying Congress."
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#36
The OP clearly states that she had a 15 year career in corporate communications, so what's the beef?
Gormy Cuss
Jun 2014
#43
Or she wanted the focus to stay on mothers rather than just her, which is what a good corporate
Gormy Cuss
Jun 2014
#59
Their annual budget is roughly $250 Million and I don't think that includes the PAC.
Hoyt
Jun 2014
#18
I just told you, $250 Million, plus PAC donations, plus lobbying and swiftboating.
Hoyt
Jun 2014
#23
You mean like Open Carry Texas snd such. That's a racist group of gun intimidators, not
Hoyt
Jun 2014
#69
What else have the gun fetishists here ever done beside that? See posts above and below
villager
Jun 2014
#26
Does this mean we're no longer responsible for Lapierre and Nugent?
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#42
Sorry lady but calling for "tougher background checks" and talking to kids isnt going to do it.
951-Riverside
Jun 2014
#91
If people insist on "bearing" guns then background checks shouldn't be free or cheap.
951-Riverside
Jun 2014
#95
"Our ancestors used bows and spears just fine before firearms came into existence."
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#104
Funny, you lot seem to like those mandatory sentences unless it happens to someone like..
X_Digger
Jun 2014
#96
Will these $5000 checks be as effective as the ban on heroin has been?
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2014
#103