In these uncertain times of political unrest, economic uncertainty and raging debates about retirement age, it's nice to know that Canadian members of Parliament are taking time out to discuss something which is critically important: namely, themselves. Yes, the elected members of Canada's Parliament always seem to find time to debate serious issues like their pay increases and the general laziness of the public service, even when dealing with the issues of critical global importance. Their latest? How they appear on camera.
After a few youtube videos displaying less than professional behavior of certain MPs checking out their hair and falling asleep during debate period, the MPs have decided to debate the issue of camera usage in the House of Commons. They're arguing that the use of wide span shots which sometimes showcase the empty seats while in session 'make them look bad' and that they would like to know which cameras are on them and when. Presumably, these measures would make all the parties look good by not featuring their absenteeism rates or their propensity for power naps.
While a riveting hour or so of parliamentary debate often takes a back seat to reality programming like the Bachelor over dinner, the use of cameras in Parliament are useful for so many reasons. On the one hand, they make great youtube videos. Who doesn't want to see a rookie MP earning $157,000 a year for the next 4 years due to his big win in the last election fall asleep in the House? It's a great giggle for us Canadian taxpayers who pay out that salary in the hope that the said MP will actually voice our opinions in the House when a serious social issue concerning our welfare is being debated- or voted on.
On the other hand, they also capture those rare gems that make political life in Canada so fascinating, like John Baird yelling at someone over something or Justin Trudeau's slow and gradual transformation into Johnny Depp. Sometimes there's drama like when the romance went sour between Peter McKay and Brenda Stronach and he called her a bitch while in session. Oh yes he did! It was good enough for a Real MPs of Ottawa reality series to launch on Slice. These precious memories would all be lost to the Canadian public if the MPs pass a bill to tightly control tv coverage of the House. It may make the business of the House seems sterile and stiff- like government or something.
The House of Commons is a public venue and it houses public servants of the highest rank and paygrade, which are the elected MPs. The bottom line is that they are public people now and cameras are just par for the course. If the MPs don't want to look silly, then it's their job not to look silly by conducting themselves like the mature, intelligent, well-grounded people that they pretended they were during their election campaigns. Now that they're comfortably in their seats of power, it's time for them to prove that they belong there by doing simple things like showing up and staying awake. And maybe learning to apply blush.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
An Idea of Wealth
The Wealthy Barmaid may be an eye-catching title for an article which was posted to Yahoo's website (http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthy-barmaid-s-rrsp-is-2-income-properties.html)but a closer read of the article paints a less than rosy picture. The article is centered around the example of Melanie Bajrovic, a highly educated young woman with multiple jobs and a great work ethic, not to mention two income properties that she's planning on using as her own version of RRSPs as she works in bars and restaurants in the meantime. There are a lot of good points for Bajrovic; she's smart, she works a lot, and she's very frugal. All of that would make her a shining beacon to the current lazy, entitled generation of kids who think that budget is a four letter word. And yet...
And yet Bajrovic has been working since she was 14 and has saved well over 75% of her earnings. Never mind the fact that 14 is well below the legal working age; the saving has been largely a result of her not having expenses. Bajrovic continues to live at home and has managed to buy property based on small downpayments and home renovations covered by her parents (to the tune of $30,000). She keeps her social life to a minimum and lives off $100 a week or so to cover her cell phone, gas and cigarettes. She works a lot of the time, shift work with more than one job. You have to wonder: is this truly a model?
Most of us equate wealth with independence. It means we're self-sufficient and that we can make our own choices. Living at home is not a form of self-sufficiency, even while paying your own way on certain bills. Being smart financially is about balancing your income with your expenses and not allowing one to exceed the other; it's not about eliminating those expenses by letting someone else take them on, which is what her parents are doing by subsidizing all of her living expenses.
There is a lot to be said about living on your own. It's not just about being able to balance a budget, but about essential life skills, and that includes cooking, cleaning, laundry and achieving worklife balance. It's also nice to have personal space, me time and to take pride in ownership when you've worked hard to live somewhere. Privacy and freedom are a big part of wealth, not just dollars and cents.
Then there's the whole social life aspect of this equation. While it's true that many of us cut down on expenses by not socializing or going out on the town, what exactly is the consequence of a minimal social life? It doesn't sound fun, fulfilling or meaningful; in fact, it sounds downright lonely, in the old Dickensian sense of staying at home with a bowl of porridge before heading to another day in a chilly office. Aren't friends more important than money?
The economy is tough and jobs are hard to find. Everyone has to make it their own way, and it's great that some people have found a way to make it work for them. But I think it's important for people to remember that wealth is not just about money; it's also about quality of life and happiness and all those intangible things that we sometimes take for granted.
And yet Bajrovic has been working since she was 14 and has saved well over 75% of her earnings. Never mind the fact that 14 is well below the legal working age; the saving has been largely a result of her not having expenses. Bajrovic continues to live at home and has managed to buy property based on small downpayments and home renovations covered by her parents (to the tune of $30,000). She keeps her social life to a minimum and lives off $100 a week or so to cover her cell phone, gas and cigarettes. She works a lot of the time, shift work with more than one job. You have to wonder: is this truly a model?
Most of us equate wealth with independence. It means we're self-sufficient and that we can make our own choices. Living at home is not a form of self-sufficiency, even while paying your own way on certain bills. Being smart financially is about balancing your income with your expenses and not allowing one to exceed the other; it's not about eliminating those expenses by letting someone else take them on, which is what her parents are doing by subsidizing all of her living expenses.
There is a lot to be said about living on your own. It's not just about being able to balance a budget, but about essential life skills, and that includes cooking, cleaning, laundry and achieving worklife balance. It's also nice to have personal space, me time and to take pride in ownership when you've worked hard to live somewhere. Privacy and freedom are a big part of wealth, not just dollars and cents.
Then there's the whole social life aspect of this equation. While it's true that many of us cut down on expenses by not socializing or going out on the town, what exactly is the consequence of a minimal social life? It doesn't sound fun, fulfilling or meaningful; in fact, it sounds downright lonely, in the old Dickensian sense of staying at home with a bowl of porridge before heading to another day in a chilly office. Aren't friends more important than money?
The economy is tough and jobs are hard to find. Everyone has to make it their own way, and it's great that some people have found a way to make it work for them. But I think it's important for people to remember that wealth is not just about money; it's also about quality of life and happiness and all those intangible things that we sometimes take for granted.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Fighting the Fighting Issue
The Governor General of Canada, David Johnston, has spoken out against fighting in hockey, saying that it doesn't have a role in the game that he so loves as a Canadian. He underlines the skill aspect of the sport as being one of its virtues, along with speed and playmaking. While it's admirable that the Governor General takes an interest in the game as a sport and cultural mainstay, this oversimplification of the issues which are fighting and concussions does a great disservice to the world of professional sports.
The first thing to do is separate the issues of fighting and concussions. First, because concussions are too poorly understood in the field of medical science to be at the cause of all injuries being reported as concussions this season and secondly, because concussions are often not caused by fighting. The rash of concussions that the NHL has seen this season are largely the result of incidental contact within the neutral zone, often with another player looking the wrong way. It has happened more than once that a teammate on teammate accident in this zone is the cause of the concussion and not fisticuffs.
Furthermore, this type of incidental contact in the neutral zone is the result of the game getting faster. Speed may be what's killing the game today. When the NHL decided to make the game more exciting by decreasing the rink size and eliminating the red line, putting the trapezoid in to decrease the role of goaltenders and create more crease scrums, all of these decisions sped up the game. The very speed of the game, as well as the increase in the size of the players, coupled by the smaller ice surface, has caused more contact, wanted or not.
The most severe injuries usually are the result of this incidental contact because players are not prepared to receive the impact. A legal check into the boards, and yes, even a staged fight at centre ice, are all things a player can brace themselves for and this often prevents serious injury. It's the very unpredictable and unexpected nature of incidental contact which aggravates these injuries.
Take both of Sidney Crosby's cases: in case one, during the Winter Classic, he takes an unintentional elbow to the head while looking the other way from Dave Steckel. No dirty play there. In case two, he takes one in the numbers on the boards during a game, an offense which is a minor at best since the offending player did not leave his feet. In case three, he and another teammate get mixed up in the neutral zone. Not a single of these cases involve fighting, but they all involve concussions. This is another reason why the two issues should not be confused. Fighting can lead to concussions, but they are not the root cause of concussions and they don't even begin to explain the spate of injuries this season in the NHL.
Fighting is its own serious issue in the NHL and it's not to be taken lightly either. First off, you cannot make the argument that there is no role in the game for fighting. Ever since the game was first played, fighting has had its role. There are also different kinds of fights with different purposes. There's the stage fight, which is done on principle, usually by two heavyweights, which is just as much for entertainment as it is for showing off who's a tough guy on the team. There's the fight to defend another player who may be pushed around or wronged, sometimes while the ref is not looking. Then there are those frustration fights which occur because the game is going badly and sometimes it can be a momentum shift for the losing team- it is a statement fight more than anything else.
So whether or not you agree with it or like it, fighting does have a role in the game of hockey. The decision can be made to cut out this role and leave the policing of the game to the refs, but even that will not prevent a frustration scrum or just bad blood when emotions are running high. Hockey is a physical sport with passionate players; fighting, like violence in the real world, may just be a reality that people will have to deal with.
The so-called cultural war between fans who want a tough game of old style hockey and those who want to see a safer game is oversimplifying the issue. There are no easy answers, but there are decisions that can be made. The one thing that is certain is that all people who love the game want it to be safe for players, whether it be the NHL or their own boys and girls. The only way to make progress in this debate is for people to acknowledge the complexity of the issues and not take a black and white stance such as 'stop fighting'. This stance doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the issue and it doesn't offer a lot of solutions to the ever-increasing issue of player safety.
The first thing to do is separate the issues of fighting and concussions. First, because concussions are too poorly understood in the field of medical science to be at the cause of all injuries being reported as concussions this season and secondly, because concussions are often not caused by fighting. The rash of concussions that the NHL has seen this season are largely the result of incidental contact within the neutral zone, often with another player looking the wrong way. It has happened more than once that a teammate on teammate accident in this zone is the cause of the concussion and not fisticuffs.
Furthermore, this type of incidental contact in the neutral zone is the result of the game getting faster. Speed may be what's killing the game today. When the NHL decided to make the game more exciting by decreasing the rink size and eliminating the red line, putting the trapezoid in to decrease the role of goaltenders and create more crease scrums, all of these decisions sped up the game. The very speed of the game, as well as the increase in the size of the players, coupled by the smaller ice surface, has caused more contact, wanted or not.
The most severe injuries usually are the result of this incidental contact because players are not prepared to receive the impact. A legal check into the boards, and yes, even a staged fight at centre ice, are all things a player can brace themselves for and this often prevents serious injury. It's the very unpredictable and unexpected nature of incidental contact which aggravates these injuries.
Take both of Sidney Crosby's cases: in case one, during the Winter Classic, he takes an unintentional elbow to the head while looking the other way from Dave Steckel. No dirty play there. In case two, he takes one in the numbers on the boards during a game, an offense which is a minor at best since the offending player did not leave his feet. In case three, he and another teammate get mixed up in the neutral zone. Not a single of these cases involve fighting, but they all involve concussions. This is another reason why the two issues should not be confused. Fighting can lead to concussions, but they are not the root cause of concussions and they don't even begin to explain the spate of injuries this season in the NHL.
Fighting is its own serious issue in the NHL and it's not to be taken lightly either. First off, you cannot make the argument that there is no role in the game for fighting. Ever since the game was first played, fighting has had its role. There are also different kinds of fights with different purposes. There's the stage fight, which is done on principle, usually by two heavyweights, which is just as much for entertainment as it is for showing off who's a tough guy on the team. There's the fight to defend another player who may be pushed around or wronged, sometimes while the ref is not looking. Then there are those frustration fights which occur because the game is going badly and sometimes it can be a momentum shift for the losing team- it is a statement fight more than anything else.
So whether or not you agree with it or like it, fighting does have a role in the game of hockey. The decision can be made to cut out this role and leave the policing of the game to the refs, but even that will not prevent a frustration scrum or just bad blood when emotions are running high. Hockey is a physical sport with passionate players; fighting, like violence in the real world, may just be a reality that people will have to deal with.
The so-called cultural war between fans who want a tough game of old style hockey and those who want to see a safer game is oversimplifying the issue. There are no easy answers, but there are decisions that can be made. The one thing that is certain is that all people who love the game want it to be safe for players, whether it be the NHL or their own boys and girls. The only way to make progress in this debate is for people to acknowledge the complexity of the issues and not take a black and white stance such as 'stop fighting'. This stance doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the issue and it doesn't offer a lot of solutions to the ever-increasing issue of player safety.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Jealous Much?
North Americans are jealous people. You would think that they would be more self-satisfied and happy, what with their freedoms and their iphones and all that American dream crap, but they are jealous bitter people. Take the current EuroZone crisis. For years before this financial calamity occurred, North Americans have been taking pop shots at Europeans for their lazy, decadent lifestyles, their abundant vacations, wine-soaked lunches and annual beach getaways. Instead of using the example of Europe to demand more for themselves, North Americans in general have been content to insult them from their offices where many of them will eventually collapse either from mental inertia, cardiovascular issues from prepackaged crap or just old fashioned boredom.
There is a pervasive mentality of "everyone should have to suffer what I have to suffer", a sophisticated thought process dating back to the time when dogs snarled at each other anytime one of them had a bone. This is dangerous thinking as a society. To think that because you get 2 weeks off a year means that those guys across the pond don't deserve their 5-6 weeks is backwards. You should actually be thinking about what it would take for you to get 5-6 weeks and the plus benefits all around, rather than calling them lazy. This is the difference between creative thinking and old fashioned jealousy.
But North Americans remain obsessed with work, material wealth and convenience. And this mentality will not slow down anytime soon with the European crisis. It's a shame that we never learned how to better our society through Europe's example. It's a shame that pursuit of wealth is very likely to destroy those good lessons that Europe once had. Quality of life is no longer a philosophy about putting friends, family, good food and wine over work- it is an index factor used to calculate rate of pay with cost of living to see who's economically comfortable.
One only has to look at a series of comments on a news post to know that jealousy, coupled with its old friend bitterness, is in style. Anytime something goes wrong for someone, there's always a handful of people who will chip in with their go-to comment of 'stop whining you babies, everyone just wants a free ride, when I was young I had one pair of pants and a wooden spoon for my porridge, etc etc.' It used to be that the cantakerous old man routine was funny; now it's just getting old and nasty.
The world economy is not in a good place. People are not in a good place. It's normal that when things get lean and mean, people are going to start baring their teeth. But maybe it's time that we all took a good long hard look at ourselves and made the decision to stop resenting everyone for the things that they have that we don't. Especially since it seems that we're at risk of losing a lot of it.
There is a pervasive mentality of "everyone should have to suffer what I have to suffer", a sophisticated thought process dating back to the time when dogs snarled at each other anytime one of them had a bone. This is dangerous thinking as a society. To think that because you get 2 weeks off a year means that those guys across the pond don't deserve their 5-6 weeks is backwards. You should actually be thinking about what it would take for you to get 5-6 weeks and the plus benefits all around, rather than calling them lazy. This is the difference between creative thinking and old fashioned jealousy.
But North Americans remain obsessed with work, material wealth and convenience. And this mentality will not slow down anytime soon with the European crisis. It's a shame that we never learned how to better our society through Europe's example. It's a shame that pursuit of wealth is very likely to destroy those good lessons that Europe once had. Quality of life is no longer a philosophy about putting friends, family, good food and wine over work- it is an index factor used to calculate rate of pay with cost of living to see who's economically comfortable.
One only has to look at a series of comments on a news post to know that jealousy, coupled with its old friend bitterness, is in style. Anytime something goes wrong for someone, there's always a handful of people who will chip in with their go-to comment of 'stop whining you babies, everyone just wants a free ride, when I was young I had one pair of pants and a wooden spoon for my porridge, etc etc.' It used to be that the cantakerous old man routine was funny; now it's just getting old and nasty.
The world economy is not in a good place. People are not in a good place. It's normal that when things get lean and mean, people are going to start baring their teeth. But maybe it's time that we all took a good long hard look at ourselves and made the decision to stop resenting everyone for the things that they have that we don't. Especially since it seems that we're at risk of losing a lot of it.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Skinny is not Healthy
The Globe and Mail Hot Button blog, a column designed merely to get attention by shocking and appalling audiences, making it the Fox News of the website, ran a headline yesterday stating that family members should let each other know that they're fat this holiday season. Yes, because in the midst of an awkward turkey, stuffing and potatoes dinner, everyone wants to be reminded that they can lose a few, particularly when they're with their family, which is not going to aggravate anyone at all.
The blog argues that a tough love approach is needed in order to combat obesity, which is an increasingly large, pardon the pun, problem around the world. But the very notion that a frank discussion of how fat a person has gotten is going to lead to productive results is flawed and ridiculous.
First of all, if a person in your family turns to you at the dinner table and tells you that you should lose a few pounds, your first inclination is probably to tell them to go to hell. This inclination is entirely correct and justified. You are well within your rights to react this way and end the discussion.
Second of all, if you really want a person to take an interest in their health, you should encourage them to be healthy. It's a general misconception out there that skinny equals healthy. There are many skinny people who eat badly or don't exercise, but the consequences don't hang off their belts. It's usually good genetics or bone structure, but as infuriating as it may be, it does not mean that they are de facto healthy. They can be just as prone to high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes or cancers if their lifestyle habits don't add up.
The same can be said for bigger people as well. Just because they tip the scale in the opposite direction, doesn't mean that they aren't healthy or active. Skinny also doesn't equate happy- an active lifestyle, balanced diet and a general feeling of satisfaction with ones life doesn't just come from being skinny.
And if you're seriously concerned about someone's health, try being healthy yourself. Be a good example. Be the conscientious host who offers veggie and fruit platters and sparkling water at events. Don't load up the table with fatty foods and then tell people that they can lose a few. It's a great way to anger family and alienate friends to tell them that they're fat.
One final point and this is indicative of a larger problem in today's world: you don't want to shame people into losing weight. When you tell someone that they're fat, guess what happens to their sense of self worth? This process of shaming people who are overweight leads to negative body imaging and it can affect every aspect of a person's life. It can lead to terrible eating disorders and a dysfunctional relationship with food and massive depression. If you're truly concerned for people and their health, emphasize that you want them to be healthy, not less fat.
This is a health issue, a public health issue, but guess what? So is depression and eating disorders. Don't create a new public health issue while trying to solve another. If you're going to tell anyone anything this holiday season for their own good, tell them to be healthy.
The blog argues that a tough love approach is needed in order to combat obesity, which is an increasingly large, pardon the pun, problem around the world. But the very notion that a frank discussion of how fat a person has gotten is going to lead to productive results is flawed and ridiculous.
First of all, if a person in your family turns to you at the dinner table and tells you that you should lose a few pounds, your first inclination is probably to tell them to go to hell. This inclination is entirely correct and justified. You are well within your rights to react this way and end the discussion.
Second of all, if you really want a person to take an interest in their health, you should encourage them to be healthy. It's a general misconception out there that skinny equals healthy. There are many skinny people who eat badly or don't exercise, but the consequences don't hang off their belts. It's usually good genetics or bone structure, but as infuriating as it may be, it does not mean that they are de facto healthy. They can be just as prone to high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes or cancers if their lifestyle habits don't add up.
The same can be said for bigger people as well. Just because they tip the scale in the opposite direction, doesn't mean that they aren't healthy or active. Skinny also doesn't equate happy- an active lifestyle, balanced diet and a general feeling of satisfaction with ones life doesn't just come from being skinny.
And if you're seriously concerned about someone's health, try being healthy yourself. Be a good example. Be the conscientious host who offers veggie and fruit platters and sparkling water at events. Don't load up the table with fatty foods and then tell people that they can lose a few. It's a great way to anger family and alienate friends to tell them that they're fat.
One final point and this is indicative of a larger problem in today's world: you don't want to shame people into losing weight. When you tell someone that they're fat, guess what happens to their sense of self worth? This process of shaming people who are overweight leads to negative body imaging and it can affect every aspect of a person's life. It can lead to terrible eating disorders and a dysfunctional relationship with food and massive depression. If you're truly concerned for people and their health, emphasize that you want them to be healthy, not less fat.
This is a health issue, a public health issue, but guess what? So is depression and eating disorders. Don't create a new public health issue while trying to solve another. If you're going to tell anyone anything this holiday season for their own good, tell them to be healthy.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Are We Too Cool for Santa?
A recent outburst by a Santa hater on Fox News has created a buzz and re-ignited the debate as to whether or not Santa exists. In a not so Miracle on 34th street style, news anchor Robin Robinson ranted to Chicago viewers that kids should be told as soon as they can talk that Santa doesn't exist and doesn't bring them presents or come down the chimney or eat cookies. She later apologized for possibly scarring Chicago children for life by stating that she hadn't intended to give her little outburst without a parental advisory warning.
Of course, the damage has likely already been done, both to the children and to her reputation as a reasonable, fair-minded news reporter- oh wait, she works for Fox. Never mind.
But it does bring to mind an interesting point. Should children be told as soon as they can talk that Santa doesn't exist? Assuming of course that the ability to talk makes them sophisticated, reasonable adults with common sense who will not be shattered by the end of a loveable myth held near and dear to their little hearts with images of peace, love and some guy with a beard raiding the fridge for a Coke.
Perhaps in the newly intellectual, high tech age where everyone is so self aware and well educated on just about every subject on the planet thanks to Wikipedia, perhaps humanity has evolved to the point where they don't need to be lied to with heart-warming artificial made up stories. Perhaps this cynical generation of people don't need naive beliefs and hopes.
Perhaps it's good enough that they have Harry Potter and Twilight to provide those things. Maybe Santa doesn't do it for people anymore. Maybe we've gotten too cool for Santa?
It's funny that a generation of people enthralled by boy wizards and vampire love triangles somehow thinks that a man in a sleigh who delivers presents is stretching it a bit.
Unless Santa is really a boy wizard with elf ears from Middle Earth who competes for the love of a fair damsel by delivering presents around the world, a feat that could never be accomplished by the vampire love interest of the same said damsel? Now there's something that we could probably sell. Of course, it would have to be a book first, then a badly cast movie and finally, it would have to have a prequel.
I call movie rights.
Of course, the damage has likely already been done, both to the children and to her reputation as a reasonable, fair-minded news reporter- oh wait, she works for Fox. Never mind.
But it does bring to mind an interesting point. Should children be told as soon as they can talk that Santa doesn't exist? Assuming of course that the ability to talk makes them sophisticated, reasonable adults with common sense who will not be shattered by the end of a loveable myth held near and dear to their little hearts with images of peace, love and some guy with a beard raiding the fridge for a Coke.
Perhaps in the newly intellectual, high tech age where everyone is so self aware and well educated on just about every subject on the planet thanks to Wikipedia, perhaps humanity has evolved to the point where they don't need to be lied to with heart-warming artificial made up stories. Perhaps this cynical generation of people don't need naive beliefs and hopes.
Perhaps it's good enough that they have Harry Potter and Twilight to provide those things. Maybe Santa doesn't do it for people anymore. Maybe we've gotten too cool for Santa?
It's funny that a generation of people enthralled by boy wizards and vampire love triangles somehow thinks that a man in a sleigh who delivers presents is stretching it a bit.
Unless Santa is really a boy wizard with elf ears from Middle Earth who competes for the love of a fair damsel by delivering presents around the world, a feat that could never be accomplished by the vampire love interest of the same said damsel? Now there's something that we could probably sell. Of course, it would have to be a book first, then a badly cast movie and finally, it would have to have a prequel.
I call movie rights.
Donor Beware
We all want to help make a difference in the world and help out. That's why charitable giving is one of those things that we all try to do if we can, even in tough economic times. But the world of charitable giving is fraught with problems and people are becoming more and more wary.
It was revealed today that Japan is using part of its funds from the tsunami relief fund to subsidize their annual whale hunt. While they argue that the whale hunt is for research purposes, the hunt ultimately ends with the death of animals and the sale of their meat. This has caused conservationists to get up in arms, but the fact that this practice, which clearly has a commercial value to it, is being subsidized by aid money, is frustrating.
So little of the aid money that we give in times of crisis seems to go to helping actual people. The subsidy will likely indirectly benefit victims of the tsunami by pumping some revenue to stricken areas, and it probably accounts for very little of the total aid received, but it points to a much larger problem with aid. Donors don't know where it goes, who makes the decisions how it's spent and who actually benefits.
And yet, the need to help others is strong, particularly when a natural disaster occurs causing unnecessary suffering. Do organizations take unfair advantage of these very human feelings to advance other causes? It's a true cause for concern for everyone, and it's not just limited to natural disasters. Initiatives for poverty alleviation and medical research within our own communities are also suspect. Some of the largest charitable organizations are now run as businesses with CEOs who make salaries comparable to bankers. How does that seem justified?
This is not to say that we should stop giving to charitable causes. But we might all want to be more aware of what's going on within the organizations that are soliciting us for donations. Like corporations, charities should be held accountable for the way that money is spent and their CEOs should be encouraged to literally spread the wealth by not accepting such large paycheques. We should all be choosing organizations that are making better use of our dollars.
It was revealed today that Japan is using part of its funds from the tsunami relief fund to subsidize their annual whale hunt. While they argue that the whale hunt is for research purposes, the hunt ultimately ends with the death of animals and the sale of their meat. This has caused conservationists to get up in arms, but the fact that this practice, which clearly has a commercial value to it, is being subsidized by aid money, is frustrating.
So little of the aid money that we give in times of crisis seems to go to helping actual people. The subsidy will likely indirectly benefit victims of the tsunami by pumping some revenue to stricken areas, and it probably accounts for very little of the total aid received, but it points to a much larger problem with aid. Donors don't know where it goes, who makes the decisions how it's spent and who actually benefits.
And yet, the need to help others is strong, particularly when a natural disaster occurs causing unnecessary suffering. Do organizations take unfair advantage of these very human feelings to advance other causes? It's a true cause for concern for everyone, and it's not just limited to natural disasters. Initiatives for poverty alleviation and medical research within our own communities are also suspect. Some of the largest charitable organizations are now run as businesses with CEOs who make salaries comparable to bankers. How does that seem justified?
This is not to say that we should stop giving to charitable causes. But we might all want to be more aware of what's going on within the organizations that are soliciting us for donations. Like corporations, charities should be held accountable for the way that money is spent and their CEOs should be encouraged to literally spread the wealth by not accepting such large paycheques. We should all be choosing organizations that are making better use of our dollars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)