I haven't much to report, but am tired of reading. So, I'll try my hand at writing for a bit. Not that I have much to write about...although I feel I have loads to say. A predicament
( Read more... )
I saw that... It seems like a very surface level view. Speficically what I'd like to see is what % of each dollar donated goes directly to the people that need it. Not to pay the people who are distributing stuff, not to pay the people that administer the aid, but actually to the people, which is why I am saying 70% is what goes to the people in need. I'll grant you that larger organizations are definitively gonna have more overhead, but still.
Also, as to your next comment, sure $400k is .01% of their operational expenses. But what percentage of people are making >$100K, which is still a STAGGERINGLY large amount for a "non-profit" organization. Sure you could argue that "they are hiring the best, that is why they need the money", and such an argument is valid. However, it still begs the question: If you are looking to make a difference, and to help people, why are you not helping an organization that has a siginificantly higher return to the people directly in need? I never said the red cross is bad, simply that they are ineffecient, and if you are looking to make a greater difference to humanity, you might wish to look elsewhere.
Also, as an anecdotal case (and why I'm not a big fan of the red cross). I (and a number of other medics) were threatened with a lawsuit by the red cross for wearing a red plus on our medic gear for protests. Even though the red cross is a somewhat universal symbol (aside from the organization "red cross") for help, we were still prohibited from wearing such on our gear to identify ourselves as providing medical aid. To me, if a group is really interested in helping others, why get up in arms about a bunch of medics wearing two pieces of red duct tape and providing aid to protestors and police persons? We were OBVIOUSLY not trying to claim we were with the red cross.
Re: just FYIvaxocentricAugust 6 2006, 20:10:29 UTC
let me be clear, just for the record, that i really have no opinion of the red cross. i've never interacted with them, donated to them, or have even really been cognizant of what they are doing.
rather, i was just posting some objective financial data that was pertinant to the conversation since there weren't any 'cold hard facts' present.
that's ridiculous that they threatened suit about the red 'plus'.
Speficically what I'd like to see is what % of each dollar donated goes directly to the people that need it. Not to pay the people who are distributing stuff, not to pay the people that administer the aid, but actually to the people, which is why I am saying 70% is what goes to the people in need. I'll grant you that larger organizations are definitively gonna have more overhead, but still.
Also, as to your next comment, sure $400k is .01% of their operational expenses. But what percentage of people are making >$100K, which is still a STAGGERINGLY large amount for a "non-profit" organization. Sure you could argue that "they are hiring the best, that is why they need the money", and such an argument is valid. However, it still begs the question: If you are looking to make a difference, and to help people, why are you not helping an organization that has a siginificantly higher return to the people directly in need? I never said the red cross is bad, simply that they are ineffecient, and if you are looking to make a greater difference to humanity, you might wish to look elsewhere.
Also, as an anecdotal case (and why I'm not a big fan of the red cross). I (and a number of other medics) were threatened with a lawsuit by the red cross for wearing a red plus on our medic gear for protests. Even though the red cross is a somewhat universal symbol (aside from the organization "red cross") for help, we were still prohibited from wearing such on our gear to identify ourselves as providing medical aid. To me, if a group is really interested in helping others, why get up in arms about a bunch of medics wearing two pieces of red duct tape and providing aid to protestors and police persons? We were OBVIOUSLY not trying to claim we were with the red cross.
Reply
rather, i was just posting some objective financial data that was pertinant to the conversation since there weren't any 'cold hard facts' present.
that's ridiculous that they threatened suit about the red 'plus'.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment