Should teachers have the right to strike?
Basically, that is the question being posed in the Judy's Jewels blog entry Prohibit Teachers Strike? in which she also has linked to Senate Bill #264 that proposes to change the present collective bargaining laws in the State of Ohio.
I ask another question to those that believe teachers should not be allowed to strike. If teachers should not be allowed to strike, then why should any group of employees be allowed to strike? Why should some unions be allowed to strike but not all unions? Why should there be a doulble standard? Don't give me this taxpayer crap, either. Whether we pay taxes or we purchase goods and services in private industry, we all are paying the cost of goods and services. Any increase in costs always gets passed down to us either in our role as taxpayer or our role as customer or consumer.
And by the way, I know of NO UNION that really desires to strike. That is always the very last resort and almost always comes about when the employer (private or public) refuses to bargain in good faith. After all, the workers' very livlihoods depend on that paycheck. Why would any employee purposely and without just cause desire to throw that to the wind? It seems to me that we should hold employers, including Boards of Education, more accountable than what is generally the case.
Maybe the elected officials and their appointed public administrators and managers as well as corporate CEOs and their managers should be removed from their positions whenever they do not bargain in good faith with their employees.
Or maybe, we should just return to the days of slavery, serfdom, indentured servants, sweat shops, substandard wages, inhumane working conditions, and the like!
What say you?
By the way, Roland's Ramblings has an entry you may wish to read entitled American Labor Unions.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Run Government Like A Business
How many times have I heard people say we should run our government like a business? Actually, I hear it quite often.
Okay, if we run our government like a business, then would not the following also be applicable?
Elected officials as like private industry CEOs should be paid salaries in the millions of dollars. Top governmental employees as like private top managers should be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Line staff governmental employees should be paid minimum wage as is paid to many employees in private business enterprises.
The personal lives, financial interests, assets and liabilities, sexual orientation, religious and philosophical beliefs, lives of family members, etc. of all persons in government should be private as it is for those in the private business world.
Just as private corporations stop pouring money into financially losing business activities and enterprises, so should governmental agencies stop giving money to financially losing convention centers, stadiums, arenas, airports, zoos, museums, libraries, public television and radio, senior centers and community centers, etc.
Rather than assessing and collecting taxes for services and programs that benefit individuals or certain groups of people, charge user fees to those specific consumers in amounts that would pay the full costs of providing the goods and services. That would include such things as roadway construction and use, mass transit and individual transportation systems, schools and colleges, school breakfast and lunch programs, libraries, parks and recreation, fire and rescue services, refuse and garbage collection, snow removal, leaf collection, job training and vocational rehabilitation, senior centers, senior nutrition programs, Medicare, and so on and so forth.
Close down any governmental agency that is not financially self-sufficient just like private businesses close up when they are not generating revenue of an amount to be self-supporting. That would include such governmental agencies as driver license and auto title bureaus, dog wardens, public prison systems, government-operated job placement offices, records bureaus, food and environmental health inspection operations, Social Security, and more.
Practice the “free enterprise” system and let the marketplace determine its own needs and future; and therefore, eliminate tax abatements for private businesses, enterprise zones, business tax credit programs, cost-free or subsidized provision of infrastructures to private businesses, wage subsidy programs, and other corporate ‘welfare’ activities.
The above scenarios are just a few areas that are applicable in my opinion of having government operate as a business would be operated. Some may or may not be good applications. My thinking is that it depends on each situation; because, I tend to adhere to the situational management approach.
However, if we take the whole subject as a whole and say it is all or none, do you really think government should be run like a business?
Please feel free to share your thoughts on this issue.
Okay, if we run our government like a business, then would not the following also be applicable?
Elected officials as like private industry CEOs should be paid salaries in the millions of dollars. Top governmental employees as like private top managers should be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Line staff governmental employees should be paid minimum wage as is paid to many employees in private business enterprises.
The personal lives, financial interests, assets and liabilities, sexual orientation, religious and philosophical beliefs, lives of family members, etc. of all persons in government should be private as it is for those in the private business world.
Just as private corporations stop pouring money into financially losing business activities and enterprises, so should governmental agencies stop giving money to financially losing convention centers, stadiums, arenas, airports, zoos, museums, libraries, public television and radio, senior centers and community centers, etc.
Rather than assessing and collecting taxes for services and programs that benefit individuals or certain groups of people, charge user fees to those specific consumers in amounts that would pay the full costs of providing the goods and services. That would include such things as roadway construction and use, mass transit and individual transportation systems, schools and colleges, school breakfast and lunch programs, libraries, parks and recreation, fire and rescue services, refuse and garbage collection, snow removal, leaf collection, job training and vocational rehabilitation, senior centers, senior nutrition programs, Medicare, and so on and so forth.
Close down any governmental agency that is not financially self-sufficient just like private businesses close up when they are not generating revenue of an amount to be self-supporting. That would include such governmental agencies as driver license and auto title bureaus, dog wardens, public prison systems, government-operated job placement offices, records bureaus, food and environmental health inspection operations, Social Security, and more.
Practice the “free enterprise” system and let the marketplace determine its own needs and future; and therefore, eliminate tax abatements for private businesses, enterprise zones, business tax credit programs, cost-free or subsidized provision of infrastructures to private businesses, wage subsidy programs, and other corporate ‘welfare’ activities.
The above scenarios are just a few areas that are applicable in my opinion of having government operate as a business would be operated. Some may or may not be good applications. My thinking is that it depends on each situation; because, I tend to adhere to the situational management approach.
However, if we take the whole subject as a whole and say it is all or none, do you really think government should be run like a business?
Please feel free to share your thoughts on this issue.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Roland Hansen: Loose Cannon?
Not too long ago, a person with whom I had worked in a partisan political organization many years ago but whom I had not seen in ages contacted me to request some advice and assistance in a specific political matter involving the 2007 election campaign of another individual. It was the first time since our association those many years ago that I had heard from that individual, who had relocated way back when and had not informed me of whence that person had gone.
None-the-less, I was pleased to hear from that individual and was hopeful that our once close working relationship and friendship would be renewed. When I was contacted for help I gladly delivered, even though the individual had informed me that the word within the specific partisan political circle in which the assistance was requested was that I was considered a loose cannon.
Loose Cannon - that was the phrase used to describe me and was the reason given why the other individual who was seeking elective office had not contacted me direct. No further information was provided me about the “loose cannon” label; I was not told who was using that phrase to describe me, nor was I informed of how many persons may have been using the phrase. “Oh, well” I said to myself at the time and proceeded to assist as requested. After all, I enjoy that type of thing; people are people and think whatever they want; and I believed in the “cause” being presented.
Whatever. I did my political thing and helped the long-time acquaintance that had contacted me last summer and helped the person seeking elective office. Consequently, the candidate was successful in being elected and has since been sworn into office.
I still do not know exactly what was or is meant by the use of the phrase “loose cannon” to describe me. However, I interpret the phrase to mean “a person who looses composure and goes off in tangential directions in an attack mode without regard to facts and concurrently losing focus on intended goals to the detriment of the intended goals.”
Here is the definition of “loose cannon” that I found in the Encarta World English Dictionary: “someone who behaves unpredictably or indiscreetly, often causing trouble for colleagues or associates (slang).”
Incidentally, I have not heard from the person who was elected since the night of the election. Nor did I hear again from the long-time acquaintance who had initially contacted me and with whom I had hoped to renew a friendship UNTIL the past week when that individual contacted me as a result of a public comment I have made about the elected official.
Hmmm. Now that I think of it, I guess I can figure out what “they” (whoever THEY may all be) meant in saying I am a loose cannon! My new interpretation of “loose cannon” as used by the politicos in describing me is as follows: A person who doesn’t “toe the line” regardless of principles, who is not a “yes person” and does not blindly follow the “leader” without regard to individual thought, who does not “go along to get along” for the sake of selfish convenience and expediency, who does not speak or act in a less-than-honest manner in order to obtain personal advantage or to the benefit of a special interest group, and who does not “play the game” for the political advancement of self or of another without consideration of the best interests of the community as a whole.
If that is what “they” mean by using the term “loose cannon” in describing me, then I am proud to be a loose cannon! Gee, it’s no wonder I have not gone further in partisan elective politics!
None-the-less, I was pleased to hear from that individual and was hopeful that our once close working relationship and friendship would be renewed. When I was contacted for help I gladly delivered, even though the individual had informed me that the word within the specific partisan political circle in which the assistance was requested was that I was considered a loose cannon.
Loose Cannon - that was the phrase used to describe me and was the reason given why the other individual who was seeking elective office had not contacted me direct. No further information was provided me about the “loose cannon” label; I was not told who was using that phrase to describe me, nor was I informed of how many persons may have been using the phrase. “Oh, well” I said to myself at the time and proceeded to assist as requested. After all, I enjoy that type of thing; people are people and think whatever they want; and I believed in the “cause” being presented.
Whatever. I did my political thing and helped the long-time acquaintance that had contacted me last summer and helped the person seeking elective office. Consequently, the candidate was successful in being elected and has since been sworn into office.
I still do not know exactly what was or is meant by the use of the phrase “loose cannon” to describe me. However, I interpret the phrase to mean “a person who looses composure and goes off in tangential directions in an attack mode without regard to facts and concurrently losing focus on intended goals to the detriment of the intended goals.”
Here is the definition of “loose cannon” that I found in the Encarta World English Dictionary: “someone who behaves unpredictably or indiscreetly, often causing trouble for colleagues or associates (slang).”
Incidentally, I have not heard from the person who was elected since the night of the election. Nor did I hear again from the long-time acquaintance who had initially contacted me and with whom I had hoped to renew a friendship UNTIL the past week when that individual contacted me as a result of a public comment I have made about the elected official.
Hmmm. Now that I think of it, I guess I can figure out what “they” (whoever THEY may all be) meant in saying I am a loose cannon! My new interpretation of “loose cannon” as used by the politicos in describing me is as follows: A person who doesn’t “toe the line” regardless of principles, who is not a “yes person” and does not blindly follow the “leader” without regard to individual thought, who does not “go along to get along” for the sake of selfish convenience and expediency, who does not speak or act in a less-than-honest manner in order to obtain personal advantage or to the benefit of a special interest group, and who does not “play the game” for the political advancement of self or of another without consideration of the best interests of the community as a whole.
If that is what “they” mean by using the term “loose cannon” in describing me, then I am proud to be a loose cannon! Gee, it’s no wonder I have not gone further in partisan elective politics!
Friday, January 4, 2008
Lindsay Webb: The Broken Promise
It’s a brand new year; and, it’s a new City Council in Toledo, Ohio. At the organizational meeting held on January 2, 2008, a new President of Council was selected as a result of the newest DIRT.
Having just taken office as one of the three newest members of city council, Democrat Lindsay Webb joined Independent D. Michael Collins and Republican Tom Waniewski, the other newest members of Toledo City Council (DIRT), in a coup d'etat, albeit a nonviolent and legal one) by voting to toss out Michael Ashford as President of Council and by voting to install Mark Sobczak as the new President of Council. The vote of these three DIRT members along with the concurrence of three veteran councilpersons (Republican George Sarantou, former Democrat/now Republican Betty Shultz, and Democrat Mark Sobczak) and the opposing vote of six Democrats (Michael Ashford, Wilma Brown, Phil Copeland, Mike Craig, Joe McNamara, and Frank Szollosi) resulted in a tie vote. The tie vote allowed the Democrat/former Independent/former Republican Toledo Mayor (more DIRT) Carty Finkbeiner to cast the deciding vote.
Read this newspaper report of the upheaval on Toledo City Council.
Is this more politics as usual in Toledo?
And what of Lindsay Webb, the new councilperson who is also an attorney? She had promised to vote for Michael Ashford. Has anyone ever heard the phrase breach of promise?
Why did Lindsay Webb make a promise, and then break her promise? Could it have anything to do with new additional information or some type of political deal or something else entirely?
I may or may not agree with the ultimate decision on the selection of Toledo City Council, but that is of no concern to me.
Actually, the answer to the question of why Lindsay Webb broke her promise is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. A promise is a promise is a promise.
There is a question that always enters my mind when confronted with a situation involving anyone who has broken a promise:
What other promises that have been made in the past or that might be made in the future will be broken?
Having just taken office as one of the three newest members of city council, Democrat Lindsay Webb joined Independent D. Michael Collins and Republican Tom Waniewski, the other newest members of Toledo City Council (DIRT), in a coup d'etat, albeit a nonviolent and legal one) by voting to toss out Michael Ashford as President of Council and by voting to install Mark Sobczak as the new President of Council. The vote of these three DIRT members along with the concurrence of three veteran councilpersons (Republican George Sarantou, former Democrat/now Republican Betty Shultz, and Democrat Mark Sobczak) and the opposing vote of six Democrats (Michael Ashford, Wilma Brown, Phil Copeland, Mike Craig, Joe McNamara, and Frank Szollosi) resulted in a tie vote. The tie vote allowed the Democrat/former Independent/former Republican Toledo Mayor (more DIRT) Carty Finkbeiner to cast the deciding vote.
Read this newspaper report of the upheaval on Toledo City Council.
Is this more politics as usual in Toledo?
And what of Lindsay Webb, the new councilperson who is also an attorney? She had promised to vote for Michael Ashford. Has anyone ever heard the phrase breach of promise?
Why did Lindsay Webb make a promise, and then break her promise? Could it have anything to do with new additional information or some type of political deal or something else entirely?
I may or may not agree with the ultimate decision on the selection of Toledo City Council, but that is of no concern to me.
Actually, the answer to the question of why Lindsay Webb broke her promise is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. A promise is a promise is a promise.
There is a question that always enters my mind when confronted with a situation involving anyone who has broken a promise:
What other promises that have been made in the past or that might be made in the future will be broken?
Friday, December 28, 2007
Christmas and Zoo Lights: Destroying Our Planet Earth.
Green is the “in” thing. By green, I make reference to green Earth, saving trees, less use of plastics, less use of non-biodegradables, increase in the use of renewable energy, and decrease in the use of fossil fuels.
A “green” attitude is a healthy attitude. A “green” approach is a “save our planet Earth” approach.
Many, many people have jumped on the green advocating bandwagon; but, most are hypocrites as the most recent Christmas season has proven once again.
Yes, I said Christmas; and, I mean it.
Christmas celebration rituals, at least in the United States of America, are anti-green. USA Christmas observance celebration traditions contribute greatly to global warming. Christmas observances, excluding religious services, are downright anti-Earth and lead to the destruction of our planet.
What? You ask. How dare I say that! You say.
My answer is: “I say it simply and easily.”
Why? You ask. How? You ask.
My response is as follows:
Think of all the evergreen trees that are cut down to be used as Christmas trees and in the making of Christmas wreaths. Think of all the non-biodegradable Christmas decorations and artificial Christmas trees that are manufactured. Think of all the plastic products (made from petroleum and non-biodegradable) used during the Christmas season celebrations. Think of all the Christmas lights used in homes, in yards, at business establishments, in public displays, and such, all of which use enormous amounts of precious electrical energy mostly generated by dirty, atmosphere-polluting coal, a fossil fuel nonrenewable energy source.
And then, there are the ever-increasingly popular Zoo Lights ---- UGH!!! Think of all the nonrenewable energy used in those displays! What a tremendous nonproductive, nonutilitarian use of electricity at an exorbitant cost to all of us, directly or nondirectly.
Think of all of that and more! Now, can you honestly tell me that the popular Christmas observances are helping to save and preserve our Earth? I say it all adds up to the unnecessary use of our valuable natural resources, an increase in global warming, and a hastening of the destruction of our planet Earth!
To all those who are destroying our planet through the guise of Christmas celebrating energy-wasting Christmas displays, zoo lights, and the like, I say:
Bah! Humbug!
A “green” attitude is a healthy attitude. A “green” approach is a “save our planet Earth” approach.
Many, many people have jumped on the green advocating bandwagon; but, most are hypocrites as the most recent Christmas season has proven once again.
Yes, I said Christmas; and, I mean it.
Christmas celebration rituals, at least in the United States of America, are anti-green. USA Christmas observance celebration traditions contribute greatly to global warming. Christmas observances, excluding religious services, are downright anti-Earth and lead to the destruction of our planet.
What? You ask. How dare I say that! You say.
My answer is: “I say it simply and easily.”
Why? You ask. How? You ask.
My response is as follows:
Think of all the evergreen trees that are cut down to be used as Christmas trees and in the making of Christmas wreaths. Think of all the non-biodegradable Christmas decorations and artificial Christmas trees that are manufactured. Think of all the plastic products (made from petroleum and non-biodegradable) used during the Christmas season celebrations. Think of all the Christmas lights used in homes, in yards, at business establishments, in public displays, and such, all of which use enormous amounts of precious electrical energy mostly generated by dirty, atmosphere-polluting coal, a fossil fuel nonrenewable energy source.
And then, there are the ever-increasingly popular Zoo Lights ---- UGH!!! Think of all the nonrenewable energy used in those displays! What a tremendous nonproductive, nonutilitarian use of electricity at an exorbitant cost to all of us, directly or nondirectly.
Think of all of that and more! Now, can you honestly tell me that the popular Christmas observances are helping to save and preserve our Earth? I say it all adds up to the unnecessary use of our valuable natural resources, an increase in global warming, and a hastening of the destruction of our planet Earth!
To all those who are destroying our planet through the guise of Christmas celebrating energy-wasting Christmas displays, zoo lights, and the like, I say:
Bah! Humbug!
Friday, December 21, 2007
Government Mortgage Bailouts: Welfare for Big Business
I don't know about you, but I think all this stuff about the government helping people save their homes by providing government financial assistance is a bunch of crap. The bottom line is that it really is a form of welfare to the mortgage industry -- banks, financial institutions, speculators, and the like.
Think of it. Who really benefits from the government intervention? I say let the mortgage industry eat it all up! Let that industry lower its rates or let them get stuck with all the homes they want to forclose upon but cannot sell. Do you really think the mortgage industry really wants all those homes? I think not. If the government does not intervene, the mortgage industry will have to negotiate new rates with homeowners or the mortgage industry itself will go bancrupt.
Read this just for enlightenment.
Think of it. Who really benefits from the government intervention? I say let the mortgage industry eat it all up! Let that industry lower its rates or let them get stuck with all the homes they want to forclose upon but cannot sell. Do you really think the mortgage industry really wants all those homes? I think not. If the government does not intervene, the mortgage industry will have to negotiate new rates with homeowners or the mortgage industry itself will go bancrupt.
Read this just for enlightenment.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Jack Ford: Volunteer or Politician?
It is possible to wear many hats and serve many roles concurrently. I
should know; I've been there, and I've done that. And, so has Jack
Ford, who is a citizen activist, community volunteer, educator, and
politician. Those are all roles with which I can identify and
appreciate.
I read about Toledo City School Board member Jack Ford
in this interesting newspaper article. I have
known Jack Ford for a couple decades. I met him before he was a Toledo
City Councilman, before he was a member of the Ohio House of
Representatives, and before he was Mayor of the City of Toledo. From
time to time, I have had some minor differences of opinion with Jack
Ford, but nothing really monumental. And while there may have been some
occasions in which I have been questionable of him, I have never
doubted his sincerity and commitment to community service. In fact, I
respect his dedication to public service and the community.
His
involvement as a volunteer serving in the capacity of development
director with the Kidney Foundation of Northwest Ohio and as
a member of Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease is
just the latest in his long list of organizational involvements that
demonstrate his desire to be of service. I tip my hat off to Jack Ford
in appreciation of his community, civic, and charitable service.
should know; I've been there, and I've done that. And, so has Jack
Ford, who is a citizen activist, community volunteer, educator, and
politician. Those are all roles with which I can identify and
appreciate.
I read about Toledo City School Board member Jack Ford
in this interesting newspaper article. I have
known Jack Ford for a couple decades. I met him before he was a Toledo
City Councilman, before he was a member of the Ohio House of
Representatives, and before he was Mayor of the City of Toledo. From
time to time, I have had some minor differences of opinion with Jack
Ford, but nothing really monumental. And while there may have been some
occasions in which I have been questionable of him, I have never
doubted his sincerity and commitment to community service. In fact, I
respect his dedication to public service and the community.
His
involvement as a volunteer serving in the capacity of development
director with the Kidney Foundation of Northwest Ohio and as
a member of Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease is
just the latest in his long list of organizational involvements that
demonstrate his desire to be of service. I tip my hat off to Jack Ford
in appreciation of his community, civic, and charitable service.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Ohio Republican State Legislators: Criminals or Not?
The recent actions of the Republican members in the Ohio General Assembly have left me aghast and more aghast.
Are there many elected Ohio Republican criminal state legislators, a few elected Ohio Republican criminal state legislators, or no elected Ohio Republican criminal state legislators?
We may never know the answer.
Read the Glass City Jungle blog entry of Lisa Renee entitled "GOP blocks criminal checks for legislators."
Are there many elected Ohio Republican criminal state legislators, a few elected Ohio Republican criminal state legislators, or no elected Ohio Republican criminal state legislators?
We may never know the answer.
Read the Glass City Jungle blog entry of Lisa Renee entitled "GOP blocks criminal checks for legislators."
Thursday, December 6, 2007
The Grinch Of Reality
‘Tis the season that many people become more charitable.
‘Tis also the season that many charities prey upon susceptible people.
I’ve never agreed with the folks who think about helping others at specific times of the year. You know of whom I write.
You know – the folks that want to give out food baskets during Thanksgiving and at Christmas. Heck, people are hungry year ‘round. Having served with the “Feed Your Neighbor” program, the Old Newsboys Goodfellows Association, and other charitable organizations, and having worked in the social work field for many years, not to mention having been raised in a poor family that received food through the now defunct government surplus food commodities program for the needy, trust me, I know. And if there were not enough ‘hand-me-down’ clothes for all of us as kids, we went to the thrift shop for the rest of our clothing needs.
Incidentally, the Feed Your Neighbor program is a 100% charity that helps feed people all year round. The Old Newsboys Goodfellows is also a 100% charity that helps out with coats, gloves, shoes, etc. all year long, not just during the holiday season.
I really do not understand the folks who seem to want to help the “less fortunate” only during Christmas with things other than food – things like toys. Oh yeah, that’s really going to help with food, clothing. and shelter!
Then there are the people who come to the rescue during a crisis such as a death or medical operation or whatever. Then all the individual fund raisers pop up all over the place just to help the impacted individual or family.
Not too long ago, there were a slew of benefit fund raisers and other solicitation efforts to assist the widow and two children of a murder victim. There was so much money raised, it was overflowing. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But I questioned it then and I question it now. Why? Because the widow and children received an extremely large amount of money from insurance and other death benefit policies and programs, as well as a sizable survivors’ pension that financially they entered the realm of the wealthy. What about all the other family survivors out there that receive nothing?
There are recipients of individual charitable efforts who actually wind up far better off financially after the efforts than before the efforts and who then have more money than most moderate income families. I draw the line at the point where the recipient can now drive the new fancy car, dine out at fancy restaurants, have all the latest fancy electronic gizmos, visit the casinos, and so on. I’ve seen that happen on several occasions.
Now if you haven’t already gotten all upset with me, let me say this:
I am strongly in favor of helping those who are in need of help. And, I have done so throughout my life. I am a believer in charitable efforts and causes. And, I have been active in those efforts and causes throughout my life.
So, what is my message? Simple. Help all you can throughout the year and throughout your life.
Before you start giving to this cause or that cause, and to this charity or that charity, make sure of a few things by getting answers to some questions, such as:
Is the cause legitimate?
If the cause is legitimate, are there other resources already available?
Is the charity a legitimate charity?
How much of the donations and contributions to the charity actually reach the intended recipients?
---- Are you getting the picture?
With all the means that are available nowadays, I suggest that you research charity ratings as a way to identify legitimate charities. There are several ways you can research charities on the internet.
Below are some of the more common websites that can help you:
Charity Navigator, Your Guide To Intelligent Giving
Charity Guide, Charity Ratings: Donate To A Good Charity, Not Just To A Good Cause
American Institute of Philanthropy, Helping You Give Wisely To Charity
Forbes.com, Most (And Least) Efficient Charities
US National BBB.org: For Charities and Donors, Better Business Bureau, Start With Trust.
Give.org, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Investigate Before You Donate
‘Tis also the season that many charities prey upon susceptible people.
I’ve never agreed with the folks who think about helping others at specific times of the year. You know of whom I write.
You know – the folks that want to give out food baskets during Thanksgiving and at Christmas. Heck, people are hungry year ‘round. Having served with the “Feed Your Neighbor” program, the Old Newsboys Goodfellows Association, and other charitable organizations, and having worked in the social work field for many years, not to mention having been raised in a poor family that received food through the now defunct government surplus food commodities program for the needy, trust me, I know. And if there were not enough ‘hand-me-down’ clothes for all of us as kids, we went to the thrift shop for the rest of our clothing needs.
Incidentally, the Feed Your Neighbor program is a 100% charity that helps feed people all year round. The Old Newsboys Goodfellows is also a 100% charity that helps out with coats, gloves, shoes, etc. all year long, not just during the holiday season.
I really do not understand the folks who seem to want to help the “less fortunate” only during Christmas with things other than food – things like toys. Oh yeah, that’s really going to help with food, clothing. and shelter!
Then there are the people who come to the rescue during a crisis such as a death or medical operation or whatever. Then all the individual fund raisers pop up all over the place just to help the impacted individual or family.
Not too long ago, there were a slew of benefit fund raisers and other solicitation efforts to assist the widow and two children of a murder victim. There was so much money raised, it was overflowing. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But I questioned it then and I question it now. Why? Because the widow and children received an extremely large amount of money from insurance and other death benefit policies and programs, as well as a sizable survivors’ pension that financially they entered the realm of the wealthy. What about all the other family survivors out there that receive nothing?
There are recipients of individual charitable efforts who actually wind up far better off financially after the efforts than before the efforts and who then have more money than most moderate income families. I draw the line at the point where the recipient can now drive the new fancy car, dine out at fancy restaurants, have all the latest fancy electronic gizmos, visit the casinos, and so on. I’ve seen that happen on several occasions.
Now if you haven’t already gotten all upset with me, let me say this:
I am strongly in favor of helping those who are in need of help. And, I have done so throughout my life. I am a believer in charitable efforts and causes. And, I have been active in those efforts and causes throughout my life.
So, what is my message? Simple. Help all you can throughout the year and throughout your life.
Before you start giving to this cause or that cause, and to this charity or that charity, make sure of a few things by getting answers to some questions, such as:
Is the cause legitimate?
If the cause is legitimate, are there other resources already available?
Is the charity a legitimate charity?
How much of the donations and contributions to the charity actually reach the intended recipients?
---- Are you getting the picture?
With all the means that are available nowadays, I suggest that you research charity ratings as a way to identify legitimate charities. There are several ways you can research charities on the internet.
Below are some of the more common websites that can help you:
Charity Navigator, Your Guide To Intelligent Giving
Charity Guide, Charity Ratings: Donate To A Good Charity, Not Just To A Good Cause
American Institute of Philanthropy, Helping You Give Wisely To Charity
Forbes.com, Most (And Least) Efficient Charities
US National BBB.org: For Charities and Donors, Better Business Bureau, Start With Trust.
Give.org, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Investigate Before You Donate
Monday, December 3, 2007
Learn the Newest DIRT
That's right. Do Toledoans and others want to know the newest DIRT?
I'm talking about the three newest members of Toledo City Council here.
Do you really, really want to know?
Okay. I'll start off with this:
D = Democrat Lindsay Webb
I = Independent D. Michael Collins
R = Republican Tom Waniewski
T = Toledo City Council
Now, let's get to the nitty-gritty.
All you need to do to learn the latest is click this.
I'm talking about the three newest members of Toledo City Council here.
Do you really, really want to know?
Okay. I'll start off with this:
D = Democrat Lindsay Webb
I = Independent D. Michael Collins
R = Republican Tom Waniewski
T = Toledo City Council
Now, let's get to the nitty-gritty.
All you need to do to learn the latest is click this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)