Sense of proportion in charity
In absolute terms, any amount donated does make a difference.
But when I see many people making a song and dance abt their charity, which constitutes an infinitesimal percentage of their disposable earnings or wealth, it gets my goat.
The other day, one film star made it to the top ten generous celebrities by donating a princely sum of USD 100000...I thought I missed a few zeroes..
What percentage of his income wd this be?
And what abt those silent unsung multitudes who quietly give away significant percentages of what they have twds charity? They cdnt care less abt publicity, but it is they who shd be used as role models, not the in any case heavily publicised celebrity acts !!!
A related and relevant issue is the recent discovery that three children die every day due to malnutrition in Thane Dist, adjoining India's famous financial centre, teeming with the glitterati of industrial czars and celebrities..
At a rough estimate, 0.05 % of what they have can prevent these deaths, but is anyone listening???
And why shd they? as long as they make it to Page 3 or elsewhere due to insignificant charities, that garner disproportionate publicity? For all they need is to be spoken abt..children dying, well, tough luck...karma, right?
posted by Kishkay,the cortex stimulator @ 2:24 AM
7 Comments:
~ yeah, I know, like this superrich tennis player will donate his shirt for a charity auction to raise $1000, and its splashed all over the press...give me a break!
~ But the way I see it, its part of their job description for being a 'celebrity'..one of the expected responsibilities they will assume is 'charity'...and for a celebrity, the public is his/her boss, so they have to let the public know that they have fulfilled the charity part of their job description...its mostly for themselves, yes...but theres nothing we can do about it...
~ But as someone who has done fundraising before, I think the celebrity status is something a fundraiser can, and def. should exploit...its like the rich folks want publicity, the more you promise them, the more they will give to your cause...and at the end of the day,who cares who gets the credit, as long as the fundraiser gets the money to where it needs to go, all is fine by me...
~ in a personal realm, I'd say just do the best you can, and I like the idea of anonymous giving because then you dont get 'thanked' by the 'benefactor' and it carries with it no risk of it going to your head, if you were say, felicitated in a magazine or yearly report or sent a note of thanks etc...
I see you've become very blog-savvy...tacking on and removing comment moderation buttons with the swish of your fingers :-D...
yup, i learn slowly but i learn all right..
agree on strategically using the celebrity leverage to raise more funds..
f-i-l...send me the pictures, no!
Charity is a waste of time and money. it is made for celebrities to get publicity. as for the anonymous donors....most of them use them as tax write offs, it leaves very few good will people who don't have a better use for their money.
If charities work, then you would not wonder about malnutrition in India.
Rich become Richer even when they give. Thats a fact.
hi............with all due respect to u..............u write so fervently about how plp flaunt their chritable activities...............but , isn't some charity better than no charity............so wot if they're flauntin it.............so, r u also into some kind of social work........
i wud think that it's a very western thing........celebrities using their professional status to raise money for a cause.........most celebs in the US concsiouly decide to give back to society..........they do it out of love for it...........m sure u'd agree with me on this point had u watched richard gere talk on kofee with karan...............and if m not rong most of these celebs themselves have bcome somethin from nothin .........and indians want to be aping the west even on this front..............as if we haven't aped them enuh.............
Post a Comment
<< Home