Charity

[fusilier23]

postscript said:

fusilier23 said:

Maybe, although I've always felt it was not right to tap on people's wallets a second time if they've already paid admission, and certainly not to tap on the performers' wallets if they are volunteers. I left one chorus because not only did you have to pay dues and buy your own scores, but the next-to-last rehearsal you were told you had to buy four tickets at full price out of your own pocket, or you could not sing. Reselling them was on you, and if you sold them at the reduced senior/student rate, you ate the difference. I was a law student at the time, so every dollar counted.

I'd say that UNICEF should take out an ad in the programme if they are looking for donations, then those so inclined can donate without it being intrusive. Plus, since in the UK you usually have to buy the programme (in the US they are handed out for free) those who are already strapped won't see the ad.

I think your points are very valid and we need to take care in our enthusiasm we do not put people off, not just with UNICEF but also Hayley by being over-enthusiastic. So many people are waving cans under our noses these days that I am now quite bullish.

While my local Waitrose may think it is being public-spirited in allowing one charity after another to have people standing literally either side of its doors rattling tins at people, I now look such people straight in the eye and say 'no thank you'.

It is appalling one cannot get one's weekly shopping at what is the modern equivalent (but a private enterprise) of the town's Saturday market without being expected to pay more for someone else and I think it is a very bad tactic.

We all have our various charitable interests, some of which are direct debits and some not actual money hand overs but are the gifts of our time. Those rattling cans have no idea if the people ignoring them are not regular donators through other channels to their particular cause.

What would be more helpful, especially for those charities one does not regularly support or even know about (which, to cover different individuals means all of them at any one time) would be to for them to display a notice by the tin rattlers telling us how much goes on admin and how much actually produces something relevant or constructive in the name of the cause!

This, I think Hayley does very well. She delivers her initial plug and then leaves it. Ater all, it is only now that I have got round to positively supporting her intentions which i first learned about last summer. Doubtless I will again but when i am ready to.

Peter

I decided to continue this thread here in off-topic, since the question generally of what do you give, how much, and to who stretches beyond Hayley, to be sure.

I'm not sure what Waitrose is, but I am guessing it is some kind of eating establishment. I can tell you this, I also say "no thank you" under those circumstances, I am going in there to eat and I want to eat my meal without being pestered. Solicitors who pound the street and enter businesses are also a pet peeve, especially after you've put up the "no soliciting" sign. A place called the Center for Missing Children, worthy as the goal may be, had people who were especially obnoxious, and startted right in after introducing themselves asking each person in range if they had children and how would you feel if they disappeared and all the usual guilt-trip stuff. I pointed to the sign and asked them if they could read. I was then told they weren't "soliciting" but "fundraising." With a sneer I said "Six of one and a half-dozen of the other. Now get out before I call the police and they escort you out."

I also agree with the idea that before anyone gives to any charity, particularly a large NGO (non-governmental organization) they have a right to know everything about that organization including how much gets swallowed up in nice offices and first-class tickets for celeb sponsors to go places and pose with smiling children, and any political bent the organization may have. Eradicating hunger is a worthy goal, yet Oxfam tried to interfere with the war on terror in Afghanistan. Torture is a bad thing, but Amnesty International interferes in internal criminal code administration as well. Treating the wounded is a good, thing, but since when does that make the Red Cross experts on how to handle prisoners of war? Not to mention the recent Oil-for-Food flap and the fact that the United Way got taken to the cleaners for all kinds of tax violations a while back.

It's one thing to give here and there to local charities, but I just threw out five unsolicited requests for donations all for issues abroad, looking for "suggested" donations of $50 and up (uh huh, I'm just going to pony up $250 out of the goodness of my heart) . Not to mention that after I paid $140 to see Hayley in Easton to TV39, who set up the event, they came back to me looking for another $40 at least the end of last year to "close the gap." Predictably my answer was no, and if that results in some folks getting laid off or this or that program not getting shown, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, if they ran it like a business they wouldn't run into issues.

What makes these organizations think they all have a claim on the salaries of those of us who actually work for a living?

[portia]

Fusilier, if people have no means of making a salary, out of the goodness of your heart, would you not give a couple of dollars to get them started, knowing that they will probably make good use of it?

[fusilier23]

For disaster relief or something like that, but if someone's just fallen on hard times because of bad habits or lacks the necessary skills because he's not willing to learn them, then no. I was accosted three times in five days by the same guy panhandling near my place of business, the first time I gave him something, the second time also, just to make him go away, but finally I told him no more handouts and to find someone else to bother.

It's one thing when people have lost everything, as in the tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, or the recent earthquake in Pakistan (which did more damage but got less publicity), it's another when somebody can't break off with booze or drugs, or has just gotten out of the habit of working. I work ten hours a day very hard and I get decent pay, but I'm not going to get rich doing this job, I think at the end of the week if I have something left over I am entitled to buy a few books or a concert ticket or a meal out without guilt. I also think I am entitled to grocery-shop without being hit up for contributions at the check-out line, sometimes with snide comments about what I am buying and how someone would love this or that if only they could afford it.

Oh, and don't buy the "fortune" lines, i.e. share your good fortune, those less fortunate, etc. I am where I am because I worked to get here, so are most people. But a lot of these places like to chalk it all up to good or bad fortune because that makes it easier to justify what they are doing, after all, they're just levelling the playing field that luck created.

[portia]

And if luck were different, I'd probably be starving in the streets, or forced to work in a sweatshop, or be a child slave for a carpet company.

I agree that people who are pity cases for themselves don't deserve to have cash thrown at them. At the same time, I don't like your attitude that it's their problem when they can't shake of alcohol and drugs. Yes, it may have been their fault, but it's also partly due to circumstance. And I'd rather give money to institutions that help drug rehabilitation or alcohol recovery than not. Of course, I'd like to know what I'm giving.

But my first attitude towards charity isn't one of cynicism. I think that as human beings, we have an obligation to give something back, in whatever small way we can. You don't have to do charity (I really dislike that word actually) by simply throwing money. You can do it by refusing to buy products that have used slave labor, by buying organic food. In fact, I'd say that by buying the right products and helping to create a market for it is a better way of helping people than simply putting cash in a box.

[postscript]

Sorry fusilier,

I am once more forgetting how international we are. Roger, in the nicest possible way, is always rapping my knuckles over that one!

Waitrose is a chain of superstores for general everyday produce. It is part of the John Lewis partnership. That is an ancient commercial concept 'partnership' and usually relates to business enterprises like solicitors. It is a way of conducting business as a single unit without the formalities of creating a company.

John Lewis is unique in that it has grown into a large and very successful modern business while retaining its partnership structure. This means that even the till operative is a partner and recives a share of profits like a company shareholder, as well as a wage as an 'employee', except they are not referred to as employees but partners..

Peter

[postscript]

Hi Portia.

Having just ticked myself off for failing to remember how international we are, may I suggest there is a danger here too of equally not appreciating different social circumstances in different areas. In the UK there is a considerable support by the state to which we all contribute through the tax regime. Elsewhere there may not be the depth or breadth of social support from the state. May I suggest we have to see different people's remarks in the contexts of those different social situations?

Peter

[postscript]

portia said:

I think that as human beings, we have an obligation to give something back, in whatever small way we can.

I don't think any on this board would disagree with you, Portia. But may I suggest that as human beings we have a responsibility to give responsibly not to 'dish out' any resource without knowledge of the value to which it is going to be put?

Heart without head is not going to help anyone in the longer term and all resources are ultimately finite.

Here in the UK we have had recent press statements that the EU is about to blow 350 million English pounds on changing Europe's telephone numbers so as to eradicate their historical creation and make Europe regionally uniform. There is not any technical advantage to it at all. That is an indication of the pure wickedness of national governments. Think how many mouths in Africa alone that sum of money would feed. On such a case of misuse of funds our individual contributions to local issues pale into insignificance.

You could apply the same argument to Blair and Bush in Iraq! Where and how does one change the world?

Peter

[fusilier23]

Sorry, I don't believe we owe it to anyone to "give something back," simply by virtue of being human. If I sound a little cynical, it's because I am. The First World has been throwing money at the problems of the Third and Fourth Worlds for half a century and a lot of these nations are worse off than they were under colonialism as corrupt rulers squabble (and do a whole lot worse)to get their grubby hands on the grant money.

And as for those who battle addiction, hey, society didn't put the cup to your lips or the needle in your arm, you did. If you try to hide from your troubles in a bottle or numb yourself to them with drugs, they will still be there when the stuff wears off and until you deal with them, life will not get any better.

And spending a ton of money to fix a system that isn't broken is obscene.

[portia]

postscript said:

portia said:

I think that as human beings, we have an obligation to give something back, in whatever small way we can.

I don't think any on this board would disagree with you, Portia. But may I suggest that as human beings we have a responsibility to give responsibly not to 'dish out' any resource without knowledge of the value to which it is going to be put?

Heart without head is not going to help anyone in the longer term and all resources are ultimately finite.

Oh, I completely agree with you on that one. I just think that cynicism shouldn't stand in the way of helping, but I don't think you should blindly pour money into whatever charity is either. And I think we shouldn't assume the worst of a person right off the bat. Humans do the best given the circumstances they're in.

Also, fusilier, I think it's important to remember that many problems in the third world started because of colonialism. I'm not trying to be one of those hippies that says the West is wrong, I'm simply saying that the west is not innocent of the problems happening in Africa either. Yes, you have to draw the line at some point, and I agree that corruption in Africa is digusting. But I don't think we as people should shrug and say, it's their problem. And I reiterate, you don't have to help by pouring money. You can make a much more long term change by choosing how to live your life.



Edit: I deleted a sentence, because this is a friendly international forum.
Richard

[portia]

postscript said:

Hi Portia.

Having just ticked myself off for failing to remember how international we are, may I suggest there is a danger here too of equally not appreciating different social circumstances in different areas. In the UK there is a considerable support by the state to which we all contribute through the tax regime. Elsewhere there may not be the depth or breadth of social support from the state. May I suggest we have to see different people's remarks in the contexts of those different social situations?

Peter

Absolutely.

[fusilier23]

The US does not have the same level of social safety net as Europe, in fact we are kind of conditioned to look down on that sort of thing, and we do look down on city and other local governments essentially trading stay-at-home checks for votes. But taxes are a lot higher than they need to be, and a lot of them go to entitlements for those who quite frankly aren't entitled. I go to the doctor, I do have insurance, for which my employer pays, I get hospitalized, I still have to pay a $500 deductible, someone who can't get it together gets treated and can't pay, guess who the cost gets passed on to?

As for my choices of how I live, it's simple, so far as I can afford, trying to get the most for the least, meaning the most durable stuff that costs the least, although of course sometimes you have to trade the one for the other, especially with something like carpet that takes a lot of abuse. If my leather jacket keeps me warm and my boots keep my feet dry while not draining my pocket too much, I'm not really going to worry where they came from, and the same with other items, unless they are somehow dangerous or illegal here. I am not going to spend more money based on accusations, though I must admit, it was funny scooping into a pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream called "Black and Tan," after the ale drink, knowing that the name is also a buzzword in Ireland for something else.

[portia]

I'd like to know where my things come from. Of course, I won't be fanatic about it, but I'd like to know where I can get chocolate that doesn't use slave labor, or carpet that hasn't exploited children. I'd like to get knickknacks from the store in the hunger site, because I'm pretty sure that part of their proceeds go to worthy causes. If a bit more of my money can further a cause that is good, I don't see why I shouldn't go out of my way and buy it. It isn't much of my money. It doesn't take up much of my time.

Besides, when it comes to food, buying organic food has a lot more health benefits for me and for the banana worker in South America.

[fusilier23]

Charity shops are a good thing, alas, there aren't many here except the Salvation Army, which is really not much better than a yard sale. The Oxfam, what have you shops in the UK and Ireland are far superior.

Food to me is kinda an unusual situation, since during the summer I usually buy on the weekends at a farmers' market. The fresher the better, of course, and it's local people, meaning the money stays local. But with food taste is always the top consideration, and I like being a little politically incorrect from time to time.

[portia]

Salvation Army is good in Hong Kong, but Oxfam is better. The problem with food is that there is very little sapce for agriculture, and so we get most of our food chock full of pesticides and herbicides and antibiotics.

[Stuart H]

Hayley sets a good example to us through her work for UNICEF. she is very serious about making a difference in Ghana and I think visiting has made her even more resolute.

Stuart