The Komen Issue
… and putting your money where you really want it to go
I'm very glad to see that Komen has (for now) reversed its decision to defund Planned Parenthood - particularly at a time when so many people go without insurance, PP is one of several organizations that provides critical services (not just to women, men can go there for sexual health issues as well).
Like a lot of cynical liberals, I have doubts that this will last for long, or that the whole debacle was anything but a political one. Between the hiring of Handel as their policy director and their blatant ignoring of the rule they created except for PP, I expect they'll try another way to cut PP out of their funding stream as soon as people have moved onto the next outrage of the day.
OTOH, I'm very glad to see that PP received a huge uptick in donations directly. I think they made up the potential yearly loss from Komen in a few days.
But it did bring up an issue that I've been thinking about lately:
Where to put money when you want to help someone.
You can donate directly to Planned Parenthood; your charity dollars do not need to be 'passed through' Komen or anyone else's criteria (political or otherwise) to reach them. For those of us who are pro-choice, this also means your money can be used to provide abortion services where needed - which is not true of public funding, or (I think) Komen's dollars either. If you're anti-choice, then funneling your money through Komen or similar may be an advantage, as you can be sure it won't be used for abortion services.
Still - there are so many ways, now, to give money directly to the organization, the event, the business, or the person you want to help that I'm seriously beginning to wonder what the value is of aggregate charity organizations.
I complain endlessly about the negatives surrounding mass media control of creative works (TV, books, movies etc) and recently, I gave a chunk of money to Journey Quest - a pretty hilarious, pretty good comedy series about a group of fantasy adventurers questing for the Dungeon of All Dooms (or some dooms, but that's not as catchy, is it?).
I've also started to emphasize buying things from Esty and other direct marketers of goods, self-published books instead of from publishing houses, and so on.
I've donated directly to Planned Parenthood and to a few other specific charities that provide services I agree on. With Kiva, and Kickstarter, I can also donate my money to precisely the person or business I want to help, knowing that 100% of my money goes to that person/business. And, like a lot of fans, I have given money to people in need, directly, as I can and as those needs become visible to me.
When some of charities spend less than half their received dollars on the actual charity, it seems a no-brainer to skip giving money to an organization that's going to skim off the top of my dollars.
I'm coming to believe, at least as someone as relatively 'net savvy and connected as I am, that skipping things like Komen in favor of PP or Kiva, or a fan who is directly asking for needed medical help is the best use of my sparse dollars.
I don't think that's true for everyone. Not everyone has the time, the energy, or the skills to make sure they're not being scammed and it is still true that these large aggregate charities can pull more resources together in mass situations but the aggregate model is based on a system where communication and research was much harder, and reaching the target audience of a charity was almost impossible for an individual … but that has changed a lot over the last few years and it's worth looking at that change to see what model of giving suits each person best.
For my part, I'm trying really hard to direct my money 100% at the artist, organization, business, person or charity I'm trying to help - I don't want someone else to say what's an appropriate use of my dollars. Cutting out the charitable (and businesses like Amazon) middle-man is one way to do that.
ETA: Okay, this is kind of creepy, to be honest. The Komen foundation has sponsored a pink lacquered pistol as part of their fund raising efforts. I'm not terribly big on pistol ownership (I believe that hunting weapons should be allowed as they have some other purpose besides the sole one of killing humans, which is not true of pistols) in general but for an organization dedicated to saving lives, sponsoring a pistol - a weapon that can't be used for anything but killing humans strikes me very much the wrong way.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/komen-foundation-offers-pink-hangun-hope-edition-174123450.html
Please comment on Dreamwidth because it isn't run by the Russian Mob!
http://xtricks.dreamwidth.org/87444.html: link to the original post
I'm very glad to see that Komen has (for now) reversed its decision to defund Planned Parenthood - particularly at a time when so many people go without insurance, PP is one of several organizations that provides critical services (not just to women, men can go there for sexual health issues as well).
Like a lot of cynical liberals, I have doubts that this will last for long, or that the whole debacle was anything but a political one. Between the hiring of Handel as their policy director and their blatant ignoring of the rule they created except for PP, I expect they'll try another way to cut PP out of their funding stream as soon as people have moved onto the next outrage of the day.
OTOH, I'm very glad to see that PP received a huge uptick in donations directly. I think they made up the potential yearly loss from Komen in a few days.
But it did bring up an issue that I've been thinking about lately:
Where to put money when you want to help someone.
You can donate directly to Planned Parenthood; your charity dollars do not need to be 'passed through' Komen or anyone else's criteria (political or otherwise) to reach them. For those of us who are pro-choice, this also means your money can be used to provide abortion services where needed - which is not true of public funding, or (I think) Komen's dollars either. If you're anti-choice, then funneling your money through Komen or similar may be an advantage, as you can be sure it won't be used for abortion services.
Still - there are so many ways, now, to give money directly to the organization, the event, the business, or the person you want to help that I'm seriously beginning to wonder what the value is of aggregate charity organizations.
I complain endlessly about the negatives surrounding mass media control of creative works (TV, books, movies etc) and recently, I gave a chunk of money to Journey Quest - a pretty hilarious, pretty good comedy series about a group of fantasy adventurers questing for the Dungeon of All Dooms (or some dooms, but that's not as catchy, is it?).
I've also started to emphasize buying things from Esty and other direct marketers of goods, self-published books instead of from publishing houses, and so on.
I've donated directly to Planned Parenthood and to a few other specific charities that provide services I agree on. With Kiva, and Kickstarter, I can also donate my money to precisely the person or business I want to help, knowing that 100% of my money goes to that person/business. And, like a lot of fans, I have given money to people in need, directly, as I can and as those needs become visible to me.
When some of charities spend less than half their received dollars on the actual charity, it seems a no-brainer to skip giving money to an organization that's going to skim off the top of my dollars.
I'm coming to believe, at least as someone as relatively 'net savvy and connected as I am, that skipping things like Komen in favor of PP or Kiva, or a fan who is directly asking for needed medical help is the best use of my sparse dollars.
I don't think that's true for everyone. Not everyone has the time, the energy, or the skills to make sure they're not being scammed and it is still true that these large aggregate charities can pull more resources together in mass situations but the aggregate model is based on a system where communication and research was much harder, and reaching the target audience of a charity was almost impossible for an individual … but that has changed a lot over the last few years and it's worth looking at that change to see what model of giving suits each person best.
For my part, I'm trying really hard to direct my money 100% at the artist, organization, business, person or charity I'm trying to help - I don't want someone else to say what's an appropriate use of my dollars. Cutting out the charitable (and businesses like Amazon) middle-man is one way to do that.
ETA: Okay, this is kind of creepy, to be honest. The Komen foundation has sponsored a pink lacquered pistol as part of their fund raising efforts. I'm not terribly big on pistol ownership (I believe that hunting weapons should be allowed as they have some other purpose besides the sole one of killing humans, which is not true of pistols) in general but for an organization dedicated to saving lives, sponsoring a pistol - a weapon that can't be used for anything but killing humans strikes me very much the wrong way.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/komen-foundation-offers-pink-hangun-hope-edition-174123450.html
Please comment on Dreamwidth because it isn't run by the Russian Mob!
http://xtricks.dreamwidth.org/87444.html: link to the original post