![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 6th, 2006 05:10 pmI havent gotten off on a good rant for a while, so you're all overdue.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
damashita got a fund-raising call from a charitable organization today (note: political organizations, charities and companies with whom you've done business in the past are all exempt from the no-call legislation). She asked a simple question which the caller wasn't able to answer and made a follow-up call to get the answer.
Turns out that the organization for which the money was being raised were to be recipients of twenty percent of the net to a contracted amount, and forty percent afterwards.
Twenty percent!
In other words, a gift of twenty dollars to this charity would net the charity four dollars, possibly as many as eight. They'd get twenty to forty dollars of a hundred dollar contribution.
There's something wrong about that. I understand that it costs money to have fund-raisers, and that sometimes it may be desirable to outsource calling. In this case, although the caller disclosed that he was a representative of a third-party, that disclosure was only prompted by inquiry. It'd seem that both the amount payable to the charity and the identity of the organization calling should be legally required.
Instead of "Hello, I'm George, calling on behalf of XYZ charity. I'm sure that you appreciate the work we've done on behalf of exes, whys, and zeds. We're raising money to continue that work. Can I count on your support in the amount of $n?"
we should hear calls like "Hello. I'm George, calling from Fun Draiser Corp. on behalf of XYZ charity. I'm sure that you appreciate the work XYZ has done on behalf of exes, whys, and zeds. We're raising money to continue that work, and a percent of the money raised goes to XYZ. Can I count on your support in the amount of $n?"
That'd add seconds to the call script, and would be full disclosure. Is that asking too much?
On a second note, how bloody pathetic is it that charities are paying up to eighty percent to outsource companies to raise their money? What ever happened to having volunteers to do such things? That's got to be some sort of statement about the surity of the economy that charities are so desperate for funding that they'd find such extortionate overhead to be acceptable. I don't know about you, but if i'm giving to the American Heart Association, the Fraternal Order of Firefighters, or the Police Benevolent Society, i want my money to go to heart research, improving fire safety or letting the police do outreach in underprivileged neighbourhoods. Hearing that eighty percent of my gift is going to the fund raising people makes me want to opt out of the campaign drive and just write the charity a check- and it's a damn fine way not to get my support regardless of how much i'd like to benefit exes, whys or zeds.
In a completely different rant, why hasn't the Human Rights Committee or similar organization come out with last-minute political advertising on behalf of progressive candidates in close races where there is a candidate known for gay-bashing or similarly intolerant positions? It'd seem like Ted Haggard just gift-wrapped an opportunity to point out why legislating discrimination is just wrong.
"Same-sex marriage. Some people are making a big issue about the need to ban this during this electoral cycle. Is it right to legislate discrimination in this way? Shouldn't all people have the right to marry whomever they choose? Shouldn't we all be entitled to visit our loved ones in hospital when they're unfortunate enough to need medical attention? After all, who really knows who is gay and who isn't. It could be anyone- your postman, your next door neighbour. Even >fade in picture of Rev. Haggard< your friendly neighbourhood pastor- and it's a horrible thing to demonize anyone for being who they are."
As far as I'm concerned, the man's sin isn't having had homosexual contact- there's nothing wrong with being homosexual or bisexual, and it's really not anyone's concern as long as all parties involved are informed. His foremost sin is being a fucking (pun completely intended- i tried to fight it off, but just couldn't) hypocrite who spent much of his time and energy condemning others for things he did himself.
His secondary sin is in continuing to perpetuate his former teaching. It'd be the perfect platform to come out and come out. There's no repentance- if anything, they're using the opportunity to lecture on their Dominionist positions- look at the open letter from Mrs. Pastor Ted.
When one is hoist by one's own petard, one should at very least have the grace to admit that the gaping hole just blasted in that veneer of perfection was something other than G_d's ineffable way of demonstrating how all fall short of observing a set of moral laws which are outside human capability to which to adhere.
damashita got a fund-raising call from a charitable organization today (note: political organizations, charities and companies with whom you've done business in the past are all exempt from the no-call legislation). She asked a simple question which the caller wasn't able to answer and made a follow-up call to get the answer.Turns out that the organization for which the money was being raised were to be recipients of twenty percent of the net to a contracted amount, and forty percent afterwards.
Twenty percent!
In other words, a gift of twenty dollars to this charity would net the charity four dollars, possibly as many as eight. They'd get twenty to forty dollars of a hundred dollar contribution.
There's something wrong about that. I understand that it costs money to have fund-raisers, and that sometimes it may be desirable to outsource calling. In this case, although the caller disclosed that he was a representative of a third-party, that disclosure was only prompted by inquiry. It'd seem that both the amount payable to the charity and the identity of the organization calling should be legally required.
Instead of "Hello, I'm George, calling on behalf of XYZ charity. I'm sure that you appreciate the work we've done on behalf of exes, whys, and zeds. We're raising money to continue that work. Can I count on your support in the amount of $n?"
we should hear calls like "Hello. I'm George, calling from Fun Draiser Corp. on behalf of XYZ charity. I'm sure that you appreciate the work XYZ has done on behalf of exes, whys, and zeds. We're raising money to continue that work, and a percent of the money raised goes to XYZ. Can I count on your support in the amount of $n?"
That'd add seconds to the call script, and would be full disclosure. Is that asking too much?
On a second note, how bloody pathetic is it that charities are paying up to eighty percent to outsource companies to raise their money? What ever happened to having volunteers to do such things? That's got to be some sort of statement about the surity of the economy that charities are so desperate for funding that they'd find such extortionate overhead to be acceptable. I don't know about you, but if i'm giving to the American Heart Association, the Fraternal Order of Firefighters, or the Police Benevolent Society, i want my money to go to heart research, improving fire safety or letting the police do outreach in underprivileged neighbourhoods. Hearing that eighty percent of my gift is going to the fund raising people makes me want to opt out of the campaign drive and just write the charity a check- and it's a damn fine way not to get my support regardless of how much i'd like to benefit exes, whys or zeds.
In a completely different rant, why hasn't the Human Rights Committee or similar organization come out with last-minute political advertising on behalf of progressive candidates in close races where there is a candidate known for gay-bashing or similarly intolerant positions? It'd seem like Ted Haggard just gift-wrapped an opportunity to point out why legislating discrimination is just wrong.
"Same-sex marriage. Some people are making a big issue about the need to ban this during this electoral cycle. Is it right to legislate discrimination in this way? Shouldn't all people have the right to marry whomever they choose? Shouldn't we all be entitled to visit our loved ones in hospital when they're unfortunate enough to need medical attention? After all, who really knows who is gay and who isn't. It could be anyone- your postman, your next door neighbour. Even >fade in picture of Rev. Haggard< your friendly neighbourhood pastor- and it's a horrible thing to demonize anyone for being who they are."
As far as I'm concerned, the man's sin isn't having had homosexual contact- there's nothing wrong with being homosexual or bisexual, and it's really not anyone's concern as long as all parties involved are informed. His foremost sin is being a fucking (pun completely intended- i tried to fight it off, but just couldn't) hypocrite who spent much of his time and energy condemning others for things he did himself.
His secondary sin is in continuing to perpetuate his former teaching. It'd be the perfect platform to come out and come out. There's no repentance- if anything, they're using the opportunity to lecture on their Dominionist positions- look at the open letter from Mrs. Pastor Ted.
When one is hoist by one's own petard, one should at very least have the grace to admit that the gaping hole just blasted in that veneer of perfection was something other than G_d's ineffable way of demonstrating how all fall short of observing a set of moral laws which are outside human capability to which to adhere.
