charity

RECENT POSTS

Madonna visits Malawi to check on charity, leaves in a huff over lack of VIP treatment | 

Madonna dancing during her recent trip to Malawi.
Madonna dancing during her recent trip to Malawi.
Madonna’s Instagram

You probably heard this one before. It starts with Madonna going to Malawi…

In the past the story ends with her visiting on of her projects in the country or adopting a kid. Her trip this month featured a twist ending.

Madonna did spend her time in Malawi visiting the projects that her charity, Raising Malawi, with her children in tow. Being an international superstar and philanthropic activities, Madonna and her entourage entered the country like VIPs.

That means, according to the Telegraph, that they get to skip the immigration lines, have access to a special lounge and are provided limo service to and from their private plane.

Fast forward to the end of the trip. The rock star and her entourage get majorly dissed!  Continue reading

Radical Charity: Dan Pallotta at TED | 

One reason I’ve never been asked to talk at a TED conference may be due to the fact that I regularly make fun of the talkfest as a gathering of the self-important furthering the mind-melting trend of sound-bite philosophy. Or maybe it’s because I have little to offer, even as a sound bite.

That said, I would like to say this TED video of activist, humanitarian and writer Dan Pallotta is Totally Awesome.

Pallotta starts out by castigating the popular notion that we should abandon typical charitable or humanitarian efforts in favor of more socially attuned business enterprises. The reality, he says,  is the marketplace will always neglect the poorest of the poor. Trying to fool ourselves into believing that a more perfect market strategy will make charity unnecessary is wrong.

Trying to force charites to take on the typical business mindset is equally wrong-headed and will only serve to further undermine humanitarian endeavors, Pallotta says.

“You can’t monetize love and compassion.” But, as he explains, we can still do it better.

AIDS 2012: Faith-based aid and secular humanitarians still uneasy bedfellows | 

Flickr, Lawrence OP

WASHINGTON, DC — Here at the (ridiculously) big International AIDS Conference, I’ve been wandering around listening to scientists talk about science and policy makers talk about policy but not hearing much about another critical issue in AIDS:

Charity, and the role of faith-based groups.

Being charitable is the central tenet of almost every religion. Charity is the ‘greatest form of love’ in Christianity, the ‘third pillar’ of Islam as well as the ‘third observance’ for Hindus and the obligatory ‘tzedakah’ of Judaism.

It’s a guiding principle for faith-based organizations working around the world to help the poor, assist in disaster relief and provide for those in need.

And, perhaps surprisingly for many, it has been a critical force that led to one of the greatest achievements in modern global health — the expansion of anti-HIV treatment to millions of people who would have otherwise died.

I’m talking about PEPFAR, the $15 billion program President George W. Bush launched in 2003 to distribute anti-HIV drugs to millions of infected people living in poor parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

PEPFAR is mentioned in perhaps every other speech here at the International AIDS Conference, AIDS 2012, as one of those game-changers. Infrequently, some folks also mention, usually just in passing, something like the ‘contributions of the faith-based community.’

What’s probably not appreciated is that U.S. leadership in responding to the global AIDS pandemic came together thanks to an unusual partnership of evangelical Christians and very secular AIDS activists, isolationist conservatives and bleeding-heart liberals. Continue reading

End of the year question for you, humanosphere | 

Happy Holidays.

Humanosphere is taking the week off since so is much of the rest of the humanosphere. I feel compelled to close out 2011 with a reminder that humanosphere is, in fact, a real word — coined to describe that part of the planet ‘inhabited or influenced by people.’

Yeah, kinda vague.

That’s why I have a key question for you, you humanospherians. But first, the northern lights ….

Flickr, Beverly & Pack

The northern lights

End of year thought: This is a news blog, or an online news website if you don’t like the word ‘blog,’ aimed at covering what seems to me to be a critical moment for humanity. It’s hard to summarize, but I believe our amazing, wonderful, frighteningly innovative and sometimes highly destructive species is at an unprecedented crossroads.

There’s no question anymore that we have evolved the capability to seriously soil our own nest — what with our nuclear weaponry, our climate-altering industrial practices and a level of hubris that (as seen from outer space … yes, I know ET) threatens to be our undoing.

Planet Earth likely will muster on, as it always has. But the humanosphere may be at risk, of a seriously deteriorating quality of life if not worse.

As someone of Scandinavian extraction, I’m happy to accept such a gloomy prognosis — especially as it fits in with my Norwegian-Lutheran holiday traditions of guilt, anxiety and staring off into cold space.

Yet there is just as much evidence to contradict this fatalistic view. A few observations:

  • In many ways, the world is actually a better place than it was even just 10 years ago with lower rates of extreme poverty, lower maternal and child mortality, more people on anti-HIV drugs and much less malaria in poor countries thanks to major initiatives funded by rich nations.
  • Most world leaders, even top military commanders, say that the best way to achieve global peace and stability is not through warfare but by reducing poverty, fighting inequity and promoting development. (I can’t say we are yet practicing what we preach, but recognizing you have a problem — whether it’s excessive drinking or killing people — is the first step.)
  • Something unusual is happening with young people. They are incredibly aware of global issues and they are leading the way on many fronts in the battle against poverty and injustice.
  • The business community has recognized it has a responsibility and a role to play in making the world a better place. Only the dinosaurs of business now say their only responsibility is to the bottom line. The idea of corporate social responsibility, however imperfectly practiced, no longer sounds so incongruous — or like dressing up a pig in a tuxedo.
  • Some of our past damage is fixable. A local creek I couldn’t have gone swimming in as a boy (unless I wanted to experiment with chemicals and genetic self-mutation) is now brimming with fish.

End of year question: So what do we call this trend, this new phase for humanity?

As a journalist attempting to cover this phenomenon, I often find myself at a loss for adequate words to describe what is happening and who is making it happen.

This isn’t really about charity, or just philanthropy. We seem to have entered a new phase of human development in which many, if not yet most, recognize global inequity and injustice threatens all of us. We have a much stronger sense of connection to each other today, I think.

But the language used to describe this new phase for humanity is horribly squishy and soft. Advocates often sound like one of those late-night TV pitches asking you to sponsor a starving child. And calling the people who work at making the world better ‘humanitarians‘ sounds a bit floofy. I don’t mind the simple clarity of ‘do-gooders,’ but many see that as slightly pejorative if not smart-ass.

So what do we call you people? What do we call this new phase in the evolution of the humanosphere?

I await your thoughts. Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah and here’s hoping for a Joyful New Year.

Tom

TOMS Shoes guy now selling expensive sunglasses to help the poor | 

TOMS

TOMS shoe, vegan green

The company that sells TOMS Shoes and markets its products as a means for consumers to facilitate shoe donations to the poor has expanded its act to include sunglasses.

As you may recall, not everyone is convinced TOMS is doing much good with his “buy-one-give-one” scheme. Some think it is more about feel-good marketing than it is about truly helping the poor.

In April, a number of aid workers and development experts decided to try to draw public attention to this issue by organizing a counter-demonstration to TOMS Shoes’ popular “Day Without Shoes.” The critics called their action a “Day Without Dignity” to emphasize what they see as a demeaning and unhelpful practice.

The argument against TOMS’ strategy is based on a number of complaints, but is largely focused on the belief that donating goods is less effective — and sometimes even harmful — compared to aid that empowers the poor, strengthens local economies and is more about development than charity.

In this video announcement, TOMS founder Blake Mycoskie says people who buy his $135 sunglasses will fund efforts to restore sight in poor countries:

Mycoskie: “With every pair purchased, TOMS will help give sight to a person in need … From this day forward, TOMS is not a shoe company. It’s not an eyewear company. It’s a one for one company.”

It’s not entirely clear what buying TOMS sunglasses will actually contribute to the vision needs of the poor, but the firm has partnered with the Seva Foundation to administer the eye care programs that are funded by TOMS eyewear.

My main problem with TOMS Shoes is that they all look like girls shoes to me.

Final? update on the TOMS Shoe v. Dignity flap | 

Here are a few “day-after” thoughts on the Shoes vs Dignity flap — the debate about the legitimacy (or not) of Tuesday’s high-profile TOMS Shoes’ One Day Without Shoes campaign, which was challenged by a much-less resourced but highly animated and critical Day Without Dignity campaign.

Vivek Nemana, writing at AidWatch, decided to join the barefoot minions of TOMS and wander around Greenwich Village on a cold, soggy New York City Day. Says Nemana:

Sure, this whole event really just helps TOMS sell more shoes, and sure, it was cold and raining in New York, and sure, I solicited bewildered stares, watched mothers shield their daughters from me, and possibly contracted hepatitis, but wasn’t I raising awareness about the real, complex challenges facing developing countries?

No, not really, Nemana goes on to say. In fact, this publicity stunt can even dull awareness to the real issues.

Tom Murphy, writing at A View from the Cave, cites a story at the Chronicle of Philanthropy which further says that buying TOMS Shoes as a gesture aimed at helping the poor actually hurts the poor — because such consumerist compassion works to depress charitable giving overall.

Both articles cite a University of Michigan business professor, Aradhna Krishna, as saying:

” .. Cause marketing warps consumers’ minds into thinking that they’re contributing more than they actually are, since ‘people may mentally assign their cause-marketing expenditure as their charitable giving.’ “

Finally, I just saw this post (via Tom Murphy) from Kelsey Timmerman of Where Am I Wearing? The problem with TOMS Shoes, Timmerman writes, is not their attempt to raise awareness. Understanding the real problem here is by looking first at who makes the shoes (hint: China). Donating shoes is not a solution to the problem; it’s merely a temporary band-aid.

Says Timmerman:

The problem isn’t that people don’t have shoes. It’s that they don’t have the means to buy shoes.

The problem isn’t shoelessness. The problem is poverty.