Kumāra Bhikkhu

Buddhist Monk, Sāsanārakkha Buddhist Sanctuary
Taiping, Malaysia

About Kumāra

Languages

Chinese, English

Areas of Expertise

Meditation, healing

Comments & conversations

188890
Kumāra Bhikkhu
Posted 8 days ago
Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
Well said. A for-profit fundraising company will tedn to choose projects that give the highest benefit to itself, not to the intended beneficiary as advertised. E.g., if APF engaged Dan's company for cancer fundraising walks, it matters not what APF does with the money, it matters how much Dan's company can get. After all, with billions already donated, what have we now? [Ever notice they don't call it "cancer *cure* fundraising"?]
188890
Kumāra Bhikkhu
Posted 8 days ago
Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
What I now call "Capitalistic Charity" focuses on making money. So, it's aim is like any corporation: maximise profit. The focus is no longer benefiting people, animals, the environment, etc. Sure, it can raise a lot of money, but how much of that actually goes to benefitting the supposed charity is not the concern of a capitalist. Say, raising funds on AIDS or cancer. It doesn't matter to a capitalist if the money actually benefits people affected by these. The more money Capitalistic Charity gets from the people, the better. That's it. I leave it to you all to imagine—better still, find out—where most of the money would likely go to.
188890
Kumāra Bhikkhu
Posted 8 days ago
Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
Here's what it says: "American Red Cross: The information presented above is outdated (as of October 2010), as Marsha J. Evans resigned her position as CEO of the American Red Cross in 2005. The current President and CEO of the American Red Cross (since 2008) is Gail J. McGovern, whose total yearly compensation for 2010 was about $1,037,000 (considerably higher than the $651,957 figure mentioned above) and for 2011 was about $561,000." So it's now even higher. Can you point to the ARC's public record of salaries? (FYI, Dan's on Wikipedia: $394,500.)
188890
Kumāra Bhikkhu
Posted 2 months ago
Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
I firmly believe that workers in charity organisations deserve to be properly paid. Yet, something about what Dan Pallotta said bothered me. At first I suffered guilt for thinking differently from someone who seems to make good sense championing effective charity fundraising. Then, I realised why: While championing effective fundraising, he was implying that people in fundraising organisations should "make a lot of money". That strikes me as something odd. The welfare of employees in charities should be well taken care of. That makes sense all around. But I doubt most of them would do better by making "a lot of money". Besides, when we have fundraising organisations (like Pallotta's) that make decisions based on profit, don't you think that pulls them away from what's right and important towards what's profitable? Besides, it's not true that fundraising efforts that pay people very well can do better. A good example is Tzu Chi (founded in Taiwan) which gives ordinary (or even basic) pay and depends mostly on volunteers (LOT's of them). Fundraising has never been a problem. In Tacloban, which was devastated by Typhoon Haiyan, 50 dump trucks were engaged to remove debris: * 2 from the United Nations Development Program * 3 from the national government * 6 from city agencies and the Red Cross * 39 from Tzu Chi Source: http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/buddhist-volunteers-aiding-anxious-families-in-beijing/ I'm told American Red Cross pays its CEO half a million dollars per year.