There is a new trend in philanthropy that baffles me. Why do philanthropic efforts always design themselves to NOT curing the problem and insist the effort cost so much to NOT carry the mission out?
Which leads me to this question. Is Bill Gates, Oprah, Google and others like them really really stupid people and organizations? Why isn't there a simple question asked when on the subject on where a person puts there money? That question is,
Will this money cure the problem or simply sustain it?
I challenge anyone to find one example where philanthropic money cured the problem it was supposed to. Or aren't they designed to cure the problem? You are not curing the problem of a starving child anywhere on the planet by feeding it.
Google now has "new" idea they are self aggrandizing and trotting out and that is they want to make a profit off of poor people or they won't help you. In the old days that was called, greed or business as usual, What the fuck is that?
Two people I would like to point out as doing the right thing for the right reasons at the right price to "cure" a problem are,
Ron Hunter, a college basketball coach in Indianapolis, went barefoot during a game on Thursday night to raise awareness for needy children in Africa. The move inspired donations of 110,000 pairs of shoes for a charitable organization.
and
Playpumps.org
I put a challenge out there for all so called philanthropists.
Put up two million dollars, all accounting has to be in public view, you use one anyway you want and I'll use one to run The Benefactor Project and give you the million back and let's see who cures the most poverty stricken people in America.
Tom Canavan
The Benefactor Project
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Cure" the problem? No, you're right. But if even a part of the dollar I give goes to feed a single hungry child, I have caused no harm, and may indeed have done some small measure of good. Why the anger and contempt for any attempt to help others along the way? I don't get it. Philanthropy, after all, in its best sense, is just a "love of humankind." Sure, there must be some misguided philanthropists and philanthropic organizations. But you seem to want to condemn them all. Thanks, anyway, for stopping by The Buddha Diaries.
Peter I do disagree with you whole heartedly. I do condemn them all except for the two I mentioned. How on earth do YOU KNOW any part of your contribution went to helping anyone?
All philanthropic efforts should be designed to make the head of household be able to feed the child you are referring to.
You say it's OK if any part of your donation goes to feeding a child? Really? You don't mind paying for some "consultants" cut? and, vague "administration" costs that are unexplained? and, the highest priced office rentals some lobbying group can find in DC to impress some contributor? and, The BMW's and Mercedes they drive?
I have incredible anger and contempt for waste. For redundancy. For not curing the problem. For using the poor as an excuse to live a very comfortable lifestyle.
But you didn't address my challenge,
Name me one example of Philanthropy that cures what it's in business for?
Tom
Post a Comment