|
Giving personally to nature would count as pollution I think 
It's just really difficult, if not impossible, to set up actions that these organizations can set up.
|
|
|
|
|
The governance of charities is a worldwide problem. Corruption, inflated salaries, and other problems are well known. This is why I try to donate to causes where:
- The person(s) managing the charity are known to me, either personally or by reputation
- These persons do not get a salary for managing the charity
This means that I give to small charities, who actually give most of their income to the poor who are their raison d'etre. If this means that I don't support the "Save The Planet" type charities, so be it. I'm quite sure the planet is quite capable of saving itself without my help.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not so much "save the planet" as "save my direct environment" (which happen to collide a bit) 
I've stopped giving to the poor in Africa altogether for a couple of reasons, our gifts destroy the local economy, corrupt governments get the most of it, we're destroying the incentive for them to do something about it themselves.
At least that's what I keep hearing.
I'm currently giving to children cancer research as well.
Their CEO makes a very good living as well.
All in all, it's not easy doing the right thing
Best of all is to get out their and do some actual work.
But that means I'd have to leave the house, so no thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I'm quite sure the planet is quite capable of saving itself without my help.
We will not be very happy when it does.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, beautifully made! 
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
I don't give to charity, the same as I don't give money to people asking in front of the churches, traffic lights and so on...
But... if someone comes to me and asks me for food because he/she is hungry, I will allow him/her to order some food and pay for it or buy some food in a store and hand it over.
I have given a lot of clothes too, but they guy getting it was the one travelling to the places and giving it personally to the people in need.
In conclusion... I have no problem in helping others, but after seeing a lot of sh1t or "being fooled", I don't give money anymore.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I find it curious that so many charities are run by people who can't be bothered to donate their own time for the cause.
This is a topic that has annoyed me for quite a while. I used to be a musician and pursued it professionally for a time. I and my band were often asked to play for benefit shows and we were almost always expected to donate all of our time and effort to it. In other words, play for free and pay our own way for everything. Yet, at these events I would see every other vendor of services getting paid for their work. It used to really annoy me and finally I said enough, I get paid or I don't play.
Over the years my cynicism has realized that charity is yet another industry that many people take advantage of for their own advancement. Now I nearly always decline to participate through charitable organizations.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
For musicians it's even worse.
People somehow think musicians do it for the love and don't need payment.
There was this big theater in the Netherlands that had a free (or cheap, can't remember) Sunday concert.
The musicians weren't paid since, as the theater reasoned, playing there was a good opportunity for the musicians to get their name out there.
Except pretty much everybody has the same reasoning and musicians just can't pay their bills.
Meanwhile, the clubs where they play make all the money.
Some musicians told everyone not to play anymore, but there's always some people who are willing to do it for free, so I believe that didn't work out well.
|
|
|
|
|
A friend told me an amusing story. When he is called and asked how much his band charges to play he says, "call up a plumber and ask how much it would cost to have four plumbers for four hours on a Saturday night. That's how much we will play for." Sometimes he feels generous and charges the rate for just two or three guys, but not often. He doesn't play very much any more because everyone expects him to play for little to nothing.
There is a flip side to this and I have heard it from several guys. That is, all of these hobbyists who play for very little money make things very challenging for professional musicians. The counterpoint to that is the professionals should thank all the hobbyists for buying so much equipment because if they didn't guitars and amps would cost at least three or four times as much because far fewer companies would be around to make them. They rarely have a reasonable response to that other than agreement.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
modified 24-Sep-19 10:27am.
|
|
|
|
|
Rick York wrote: call up a plumber and ask how much it would cost to have four plumbers for four hours on a Saturday night. That's how much we will play for.
Ain't that the truth though!  
|
|
|
|
|
You're not giving to charity, as you have just figured out.
I refuse to donate to the red cross - no charitable organization should have a 6 figure head.
I don't do good will or the united way for the same reason...
Salvation Army President is paid only $13,000 per year-Fiction! - Truth or Fiction?[^]
The 13K is fiction, but I feel it's far more reasonable than the other groups... So, I will give to them as well as preachers, evangelists, missionaries and the odd person who walks up to me for a tank of gas.
But not to an executive.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
There should be a law forbidding such greed.
CEOs of charities may not earn more than twice the average salary, including bonuses.
Breaking this law will result in hefty fines (everything they "stole" + some extra) and jail time.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that 
There is a "guideline", but that line is ridiculous.
In fact, all three CEOs of Natuurmonumenten are "well within the accepted guidelines."
I guess other millionaires make those guidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
Which begs the question - who gets fined and jailed?  Not arguing, I completely agree with you. But if you passed a law like this, then pretty soon here in the States we might want to find out how lowly congressman making 200K a year end up with over 10 million net worth after 5 terms... hmmmm
This has to fall under the good-old-boy network - I'm not sexist, the women at the top are in it too. The leader of the Red Cross pulls in a cool 500K "which is considered mid-range for a non-profit of that size." Plus all the other perks. The United Way reports 1.3 MILLION for their CEO. 
These non-profit CEO's are not stealing this money, it's being offered to them. Then they go sit on another board and do the same for the next CEO. It would be an interesting MBA thesis (I'm sure it's been done) to cross reference all of the top management of companies with where they sit on the boards....
People need to understand where their money is going and choose wisely.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
There's considerable profit to be made from charity (as in the charity of others.) A sad state of affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
You must be lost, Marc...
You're responding to a post from 2019
|
|
|
|
|
Prisoner held in nasty, little place (7)
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
modified 23-Sep-19 6:39am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Total guess: CAPTIVE. CAVE with PIT inside?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That would be a slightly dyslexic pit, then?
Nope.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
CONVICT (because it's a 7 letter synonym for prisoner, I still don't know how these things work )
|
|
|
|
|
I thought about it, and CON is a synonym for PRISONER, but I can't get anything for "VICT"
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: because it's a 7 letter synonym for prisoner
That could be an element of it (it isn't, in this particular case, though).
Clues do normally contain a literal definition at one end or the other and the rest is word-play that could lead you to the same answer.
So if we had a clue like:
Wild cat passage of play (3)
A passage of play could be an ACT, wild cat would give us anagram of CAT - which again would lead to ACT.
Similarly:
Follow round terrier (3)
Would give us DOG as a terrier is a DOG and follow round also means to DOG.
So the answer is effectively double-clued and you're looking for something that's in there twice. So your approach is actually right (find a 7 letter word - preferably not "scrotum" - that either means a convict or a small place and see if you can the rest of the clue to fit it).
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
I just don't usually see the clues.
Sometimes because my English just isn't good enough (like I didn't know that "to dog" means "follow round").
So anyway, I take it CONVICT wasn't correct (luckily, I wouldn't want to be up tomorrow) 
Although (taking another shot at it)... A nasty little place could be a duct, leading to CONDUCT?
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
What a vile little puzzle. But I have no time today due to my computer lag.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
Scientiæ de conservata veritate.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
