Enough! I'm all pinked out!

OK ... Please understand, I mean no disrespect. And I think breast cancer is an awful, evil poison that I wouldn't wish on the breasts of my worst enemy.

And with all due respect to Melissa Etheridge, Nancy Reagan, Christina Applegate (and my former coworker, Sue Menton, may she rest in peace, and my current editor, Kathy Vos, who has survived it) ...

Still, I must say this: I AM SICK TO DEATH OF ALL THE PINK. Everywhere you look, especially this month, the marketing juggernaut that breastcancerpink has become is everywhere, in your face, reminding you that so and so is supporting victims of breast cancer and the fundraising efforts to find a cure.

All of that is fine. I support it, too. Please, don't get me wrong. I'm on the side of defeating cancer and standing up for its victims. It's a vile disease, it must be eradicated. So too, unfortunately, should that breastcancerpink campaign.

I'd been uneasy with it for a while, now. It was cute a first. I remember a few years ago when Vikings players took the field with pink cleats and wristbands. What a show of support. I even liked the edgier T-shirts and bumper stickers, the ones that urge us all to "save the boobies." I'm OK with that.

But eventually, like all things gobbled up by the mainstream, it's been overdone.

A couple of months ago, a 12-year-old girl reminded me of why this backlash against breastcancerpink is occurring. Winter Vinecki, who visited Mankato compete, told a group of kids gathered at the YMCA that prostate cancer, which claimed her father, kills more men each year than breast cancer kills women.

And that's just cancer.

The deadliest disease remains heart disease (which happened to have claimed my father on May 15, 1997). It kills more than 616,000 annually. All cancers combined kill about 562,000 annually. Even among cancers, breast cancer doesn't kill the most. And, again, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A BAD CANCER. IT'S A HORRIBLE CANCER THAT KILLS THOUSANDS AND MUST BE ERADICATED.

The final straw for me was the news story I read the other day where a garbage hauler rolled out new, breastcancerpink garbage cans. Why? The company's owners felt very strongly about the cause, and their lives have been deeply affected by the terrible curse that is breast cancer.

But c'mon ... Seriously? Garbage cans?

I went to the Minnesota State University football game Saturday, and all the Maverick players were sporting pink tape on their legs and ankles. At Panera, they've got a pink bagel. In the Free Press last week, we had pink news pages.

It's all just too much. When so many people and organizations grab onto a cause like that, it's great for that cause. But should clever marketing suck potential funds away from other causes, even ones with just as many victims? It's sad that it has to be brought up, but the facts are this: If the cuteness of the pink draws money from people who would otherwise give to something else, then it's simply not fair. Why can't the pink be a fundraising color for cancer instead of specifically breast cancer?

There will be people mad at me. I understand. They may say, "Hey dipwad, isn't any money raised for a good cause a good thing?"

Well, yes. There probably is something to be said for the attention the breastcancerpink campaign has brought to the notion of raising money for a cause like this. I don't disagree. Where I get crabby is the ubiquitousness of the campaign. It's so in your face all the time that part of me wonders how much of it is sincere, and how much of it is people jumping on a bandwagon. And again, you might say, "So what? Is that so wrong?"

Kinda, yeah. Giving to a charity should be driven by the individual. Not by the momentum of a clever marketing gimmick.