'Celebrity saviors' a net negative for Africa

I'm always ready to pile on any criticism of St. Oprah and Lady Madonna!

All in all, despite their perhaps good intentions -- and acknowledging their tendency to self-aggrandizement -- "celebrity saviors" are probably a net negative for international development efforts, really misrepresenting to the public what effective aid is about.

In fact, studies show that "flies in the eyes" imagery of developing nations actually turns Western people off to supporting aid efforts.

Such stereotypical imagery, as African journalist and TED talker Andrew Mwenda notes, also scares away business:

Thus, as a result of these campaigns, our continent tends to attract the most compassionate people of the West who come to give charity. However, its negative side effect is to scare away the most enterprising people of the West who would bring capital to invest and make money. Even when they do try to do something in Africa, like Bill Gates has done through his foundation, they come as merchants of charity, not enterprise.

Madonna and Africa's 'celebrity saviors'

By Andrew M. Mwenda

April 17, 2013 | CNN

URL: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/16/opinion/madonna-charity-africa-mwenda/index.html?hpt=hp_c4

5 myths about U.S. charities

Below is a must-read article for all you far-right conservatives who believe the U.S. safety net should be torn down... and then magically replaced, somehow, by a flood of charitable, Christian giving that will meet the needs of the poor instead.

Herein I'm re-stating Stern's 5 myths in my own words, with comments that may seem very bah-humbug and un-Christian, but so be it:

1.  Charities and non-profits are founded, primarily, to meet the ego needs of the rich and emotional needs of the aggrieved, and secondarily, to help the needy. 

How many celebrities and professional athletes have their own charities? How good do you think most of them are? Enough said.

And then think about what happens when a tragedy like a deadly illness strikes a well-to-do family: they immediately establish a memorial foundation or charity to help fight that illness, or help other victims of that illness. It's more about making those people feel like their loss wasn't in vain, and that they must save somebody else since they couldn't save their loved one. Sorry for being so un-PC; and I acknowledge that such charities do some good; but such non-profits are usually more about the grief and "making sense of it all" of the aggrieved family than they are about curing diseases and social ills. The government is better at both -- the Centers for Disease Control, government-funded research universities, passing commonsense laws, etc.

2.  It doesn't really matter what your charity does, as long as it's "good," or how effective it is in its stated mission, as long as it does it cheaply (i.e., low overhead).

We don't judge businesses or government agencies by this yardstick, so why should we think that a charity's primary mission is to do things on the cheap?  I'll tell you why: because we're cheapskates who are quite comfortable with our (mostly small) private charities working on the fringes and margins of our society, making feel-good, good-faith efforts to do things but not really succeeding. 

If we really cared about effectiveness, we would acknowledge that there is way too much overlap/redundancy in charities, and that size and economies of scale matter -- and we would actually demand monitoring of results by charities! ... But if we were to acknowledge that economies of scale matter and demand accounting for results, then we'd be forced to acknowledge that our government is better in both regards.

3.  It is a truism that higher income taxes discourage charitable giving; and charitable giving should be deducted from the giver's income taxes because he is partially replacing the government safety net (that depends on his income taxes) with his wise and effective choice in how to help the poor.

Except both of these assumptions are empirically false.

4.  It's OK for a charity to have hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank as long as it's not-for-profit; meanwhile, the median salary of a U.S. charity's executive director is $133,000.

I'm not actually saying that big charities are bad, I'm just saying that most charitable givers don't like to think about it. In fact, many prefer giving to "small" charities for the exact reason that they are resource-starved. But think about that logic for a moment. Does "smaller is better" make any sense if the idea is to muster a lot of resources and deploy them in the most efficient way to achieve desired results?

Again, neither business nor governments tend to think this way. Very few analysts say that McDonald's needs to be smaller in order to feed more people cheaply. The Pentagon doesn't tell Congress it can keep us safer if our armed forces are "leaner" and "hungrier."

5.  Good luck finding an effective and worthwhile charity to support -- it ain't easy!

Since there are so many registered charities out there and scant data on their effectiveness (because no donors demand it), unless you know the charity personally and its work... you're probably just shooting in the dark, making yourself feel good.

Five myths about charitable giving

By Ken Stern

December 27, 2012 | Washington Post

The last few days of the year may be a time of celebration and indulgence, but it is also when many people think about helping others. Though much of the roughly $240 billion in individual charitable contributions comes in December, these donations are often made hastily, based on poor information. Before writing those end-of-the-year checks, here are some things to remember about how charities work and how to evaluate them.

1. Charities are principally dedicated to serving the poor and needy.

The term “charity” is associated with helping the poor and downtrodden, but American charities — 1.1 million organizations with $1.5 trillion in annual revenue — make up a large, rapidly growing economic sector that includes health care, higher education, scientific research, social services and the arts. There is incredible diversity among charities, from tiny neighborhood food banks to multi-state hospital chains boasting lavish concierge services and million-dollar salaries for executives. In fact, hospitals are the largest component of the U.S. charitable sector, but they are more likely to be profitable than for-profit hospitals and aren’t much more likely to serve the needy.

It’s also astonishingly easy to start a charity. The Internal Revenue Service approves more than 99.5 percent of charitable applications, often in very short order. Because of this, the sector includes more than a few organizations that have little connection to common notions of doing good: the Sugar Bowl, the U.S. Golf Association, the Renegade Roller Derby team in Bend, Ore., and the All Colorado Beer Festival, just to name a few.

2. Donors should reward charities that have low overhead.

The notion that charities should put as much money as possible into services and as little as possible into overhead expenses is widely accepted. Overhead ratios, which measure the relationship between a charity’s income and expenses, are one factor in popular rating systems such as Charity Navigator and the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance. Charity Navigator, for example, suggests that administrative spending greater than 30 percent is unreasonable, and it rewards its highest ranking to organizations that put less than 15 percent of their resources toward such costs.

Low overhead has become a point of pride — and marketing — for charities such as the Brother’s Brother Foundation, a Pittsburgh-based relief organization whose Web site boasts that “less than 1% of the value of donations [is] used for overhead.”

But charities need to spend on research, training and financial systems, all classified as “overhead,” to be effective. Those that shortchange these investments — and many do — are less likely to achieve their goals. The American Red Cross, for instance, struggled during Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy in part because it hadn’t invested enough in the infrastructure necessary to handle complex emergency relief.

That lack of investment is partly due to public pressure, rather than a shortage of funding. When then-Red Cross chief executive Bernadine Healy tried to appropriate unused money from the 9/11 Liberty Fund to correct weaknesses in the group’s broader emergency response capacity, she was forced to resign.

3. Tax incentives are critical to charitable giving.

People with income in the lowest quintile give a higher percentage of their earnings to charity than do more wealthy Americans. This pattern persists despite the fact that low earners have less disposable income and rarely take advantage of itemized tax deductions for charitable donations. Sure, some contributions are tax-driven: Almost a quarter of online giving occurs in the last two days of the year as taxpayers rush to qualify for deductions. But Americans’ generosity may be more resistant to changes in the tax laws than most people think.

According to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the charitable tax deduction will cost the federal government $230 billion from 2010 to 2014. Some economists believe that charities would lose less than that amount if the exemption were eliminated or modified, since people give for many reasons unrelated to tax incentives. Because of the perceived unfairness and inefficiency of the current system, many analysts, including at the Congressional Budget Office, have begun to look at substantial changes, from establishing floors or ceilings for deductions (sometimes in combination with making incentives available to non-itemizers) all the way up to eliminating the deduction.

4. Nonprofits are not profitable.

In 2010, U.S. charities reported more than $2.7 trillion in assets. Even putting aside the multibillion-dollar endowments of Harvard and Yale universities, many lesser-known charities have substantial war chests. In 2007, Ascension Health, a large Midwest charity hospital chain, reported reserves of $7.4 billion, more than twice the cash on hand at the Walt Disney Co.

Some donors look for small, underfunded charities, thinking their gifts will make a bigger difference. But that is not necessarily an effective strategy. Many of the charities with strong track records in delivering results — organizations such as Youth Villages of Memphis and the Nature Conservancy — are also quite good at building financial reserves. Charities like these identify clear goals and have third parties evaluate their work, practices that are more important than how much they have in the bank.

5. It is easy to find a good charity to support.

In fact, it is enormously difficult. Not only is there considerable confusion among charities — for example, there are more than 60,000 with the word “veteran” in their names — there is little information on groups’ effectiveness. The mutual fund industry employs 159,000 people to help investors make good choices. But there are fewer than 100 people nationwide whose jobs are to help the giving public make wise donations. So what is a conscientious donor to do?

Put in the work. On average, Americans spend more time watching television in one day than they do researching charities in an entire year. Finding good charities takes time. It means using the few organizations, such as GiveWell, that do in-depth studies of charities’ effectiveness. And it means remembering that the best organizations, charitable or otherwise, are built on more than a good story or a charismatic leader.

As Warren Buffett once said: “I try to buy stock in businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will.” That’s good advice when trying to make sure donated dollars actually do good.

Hollywood: The good One Percent

An actual restaurant receipt + "tip" left by a literal One-Percenter/banker/asshole

Since Rush Limbaugh started taunting President Obama with the moniker "Barack Hussein Kardashian" I had an epiphany.  True, Limbaugh's criticism is nothing new; he said the same thing about Clinton.  Conservatives have always seethed with jealousy over Democrats' close relationship with Hollywood and the entertainment business... and high culture, and pretty much anybody doing creative work.  And the majority of pro athletes.  (Gee, come to think of it, almost all these beautiful, interesting, smart and creative people are unabashedly liberal for some odd, unknowable reason....)

I admit, I find some of the Hollywood activists like Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda, Tim Robbbins and Sean Penn annoying, sanctimonious know-it-all's at times.  In fact I get downright furious when they steal the show at protests organized by normal groups of liberals and give the MSM an excuse to label it a "Hollywood" event, thereby dismissing it.

Nevertheless, I have realized something important: Hollywood actors are the One Percent.  Less than that, actually.  They are the hyper-competitive free market on glorious display.  They call it show business for a reason.  These people are filthy rich because we fork over our hard-earned money to see their shows, year in, year out.  Nobody has given them anything.  And Hollywood has never, ever asked taxpayers for $14 trillion in bailouts.

And so, to the extent they are the One Percent, they are the good kind of filthy rich privileged assholes, if there is such a thing.  Indeed, most of them come from humble backgrounds.  Most know what it's like to be desperate and unemployed in their chosen profession, and struggle to pay the bills for years before making it big.  The Screen Actors Guild claims 120,000 members.  Yet how many of them do you see on the Big Screen, making $ millions?  The few dozens of people we associate with Hollywood are more like the One-Tenth of One Percent, in terms of true success.  And even those big stars who try to push their children into the business (as many sadly do) more often than not fail because -- guess what? -- nobody wants to pay to see their ugly, untalented, uninteresting kids on the stage or screen just because of who their mommy or daddy is.  In fact, it's amazing how few hereditary dynasties there are in the entertainment industry, compared to other sectors of the economy.  Talk about a level playing field!

Perhaps because of all that, many stars seem to have a sense of noblesse oblige, if you will, that is lacking among other private-sector elites, who think they are entitled to their easy wealth and may avoid giving any of it back.  ("Hey, my daddy spent $200 K on my Harvard MBA, I deserve my millions!")  To be sure, there always seem to be cameras around when big stars are donating money, but so what?  If Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein want to build schools in Africa or save Darfur, let them bring their sycophants from CNBC along, no problemo from my side.

Indeed, let's compare the Hollywood One Percent to the Wall Street One Percent.  Both get their money for nothing.  And yet what value do most of these big bankers add to the economy, weighed against the destruction they have waged on the world economy?  Hollywood only destroys the world in make-believe; Wall Street did it for real... and threatens to do it again with their now even Too Bigger to Fail Banks.  Wall Street assholes tell the unemployed to get a job at McDonald's, and take perverse pride in their system of wealth apartheid; whereas Hollywood stars, no matter how rich and famous, are required by their profession to credibly live out the emotional lives of average people.  That's partly why we love them, isn't it?  They don't just tell us they identify with us, they show us.  

By comparison, big bankers don't even try to act like they care.  An air of dismissive arrogance toward average plebes -- even to those lower down in their own companies! (google "Wall Street private elevator arrogant culture") -- is part of the required wardrobe, just like their Hermes ties.

Meanwhile, Wall Street assholes spend their free air time on CNBC, FOXBusiness and at Davos-type events complaining how President Obama doesn't love them enough.  It's not about raising their taxes or regulating them -- Obama doesn't dare do either.  They don't like him because he doesn't bow low enough... even after they destroyed the world financial system.  Being filthy rich, arrogant and powerful isn't enough for them -- they need the President's personal demonstration of respect to feel complete.  What babies!   Even Hollywood elites aren't that emotionally needy!  I mean, if entertainers want Obama's attention, they offer to raise a few million bucks for him, just like anybody in our pay-to-play political system.  

So the next time some conservative or Republican starts criticizing Democrats and Hollywood, you just remind them that Hollywood is the epitome of American free enterprise and free competition; and that they have the constitutional right (thanks, Dubya's SCOTUS!) to give their $ millions to any damn politician they please.  Even better, big stars don't expect anything in return for their donations -- unlike some bailed-out assholes we know all too well -- besides some face time and photo-ops.  If only all filthy rich political donors were so undemanding!  Then we might be able to reform health care, the banking system, you name it, and take our country back from the bad One Percent.

Interactive map: Which celebrity do-gooders 'own' what African countries

Sorry for posting something 2 years old but this is too good.  

I can't decide if this is more funny or infuriating:  "As Madonna's publicist explains, 'She's focusing on Malawi.  South Africa is Oprah's territory.'"

It is kind of interesting how neatly these celebrities have carved out their respective spheres of influence, a la great colonial powers of the past.  Do they talk to each other about it first?  Do they have G-8-type meetings in Hollywood to negotiate who gets to "save" what country?

Dr. Clooney, I Presume?

An interactive map of the celebrity recolonization of Africa.

By Dave Gilson

March/April Issue | Mother Jones

URL:  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/africa-celebrities-madonna-oprah-brangelina-george-clooney

Williams: Who cares about athletes?

This is the first and probably the last time I will agree with everything Armstrong Williams has written.


The Absurdity of Athlete Worship
By Armstrong Williams
December 22, 2009 Human Events

URL: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34938

Early Reactions to Saturday's Anti-War Rally

AP and Reuters are both using the figure "tens of thousands" to measure the number of protesters in Washington, DC today, quoting an unnamed DC parks police officer. How many people is that? Fewer than 100,000, or possibly more?

Let's not forget Matt Taibbi's 2003 article in which he berated the U.S. press for cravenly "hiding" 200,000+ people at the January 2003 anti-war rally. (This was before Bush's March invasion, you recall). The media drastically underestimated the protesters' numbers to as low as 30,000, whereas Metro Police Chief Ramsey said it was bigger than the anti-war rally in October 2002 rally that drew 100,000, and one of the "biggest...in recent times."

Yet even as Taibbi admits, "crowd counting is a tricky business." I'll be curious to read his Low Post blog reaction in Rolling Stone, because I'm sure he was there, counting.

But what I really wanted to mention was the unbelievable stupidity of the rally's organizers, United for Peace & Justice, which is a coalition of several hundred anti-war groups.

Yes, UPJ should be given all manner of kudos for organizing this timely anti-war event. So what did they do so stupidly wrong? Looking at the mainstream media coverage, any average American could tell you....

(AP): "Protesters energized by fresh congressional skepticism about the Iraq war demanded a withdrawal of U.S. troops in a demonstration Saturday that drew tens of thousands and brought Jane Fonda back to the streets." [Emphasis mine -- J]


(Reuters): "Veterans and military families joined some lawmakers, peace groups and actors including Vietnam war protester Jane Fonda to urge Congress and President George W. Bush to stop funding the war and pull troops from Iraq."

(AP): "Showcased speakers in addition to Fonda included actors Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Danny Glover.

"Fonda was a lightning rod in the Vietnam era for her outspoken opposition to that war, earning the derisive nickname ''Hanoi Jane'' from conservatives for traveling to North Vietnam during the height of that conflict 35 years ago. She had avoided anti-Iraq war appearances until now."

(Reuters): "Fonda, who was criticized for her opposition to the Vietnam war, drew huge cheers when she addressed the crowd. She noted that she had not spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years."


(AP photo caption): "Actress Jane Fonda, right, smiles with Eve Ensler, author of 'The Vagina Monologues,' center, at the U.S. Navy Memorial as they participate in a protest against the war in Iraq, Saturday Jan. 27, 2007, in Washington. Actor Sean Penn can be seen at left."

IDIOTS! Every f-ing time they do this!! Who the hell invited these f-ing Hollywood celebrities? Why are they there? What possible "value" are they adding to this event?? And the most important rhetorical question: Where's Team America when you really need them to waste some sanctimonious, self-promoting, lefty-lib camera hogs?

Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover, favorite conservative pinata "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and -- what the hell!? -- "Vagina Monologues" author Eve Ensler! That kind of lineup of usual liberal suspects needs no further mocking. They're a mockery unto themselves.

"But," pointed out a friend, "you don't seem to understand that, as long as Susan Sarandon and Sean Pean are showing up at a rally, the rally is guarenteed at least some press coverage; famous names attract journalists and attention."

To which I say: This was a planned rally that attracted tens of thousands of people. The media can't ignore it. So, all these celebrities' presence does is leave the media's viewers/readers the impression that this was some celebrity-orchestrated and dominated event, when it wasn't. It was dozens of grassroots organizations getting together, doing all the heavy lifting, making sure thousands of people would turn out, just so these f---ers could waltz in at the end and act like it was their show.

Their presence, at least according to the media, almost completely dominated the rally in Washington. Of course that's not true, but since most Americans weren't there, it doesn't matter. Perception is reality. And the MSM's reporting of this event would make any decent American think it was a no-good rally of dope-smoking, anti-American Hollywood liberals and lesbians.

But that's the media's job. Distortion, I mean. I'm not really mad at them. I'm mad at the anti-war rally's organizers for repeating this stupid mistake for the umpteenth time in recent years. Liberals fail to understand basic PR and marketing.

Listen, United for Peace & Justice: Jane Fonda needs you a hell of a lot more than you need her. She wasn't attending anti-war rallies when a majority of Americans still skeptically supported the war. No, she's glomming on to the anti-war crowd now to bask in the adulation of the majority.

Silly UPJ, you don't need B-list celebrities to attract attention or lend your event any credibility. About 70% of Americans already oppose the Iraq war; and almost 90% oppose sending more troops. In this political climate, rallying against the war should be a slam dunk! You've already got 70% of America on your side! Why f--- up a sure thing by inviting guests whom most Americans consider sniveling, immature, amoral traitors and idiots?

Here's some more unsolicited advice, UPJ: Next time Jane Fonda or Sean Penn calls up asking to speak at your anti-war rally just to get another mega-crowd orgasm, say, "Sure, great, thanks, we'd be honored! Just let me put you in touch with our event coordinator..." who will give them driving directions to an empty field somewhere in Maryland. I doubt they'll call back after that.

And while we're at it, let's turn away all the Usual Liberal Suspects who haunt these rallies. From now on, the list of guest speakers shall not include:

> Native Americans in costume, when the event has nothing to do with Indian affairs;
> Outspoken homosexuals whose only credentials are being outspoken, and homosexual;
> University professors;
> Anyone angry and black;
> Authors who aren't featured in Oprah's book club; and
> Bono.

I hate to be so discriminating, but the Left needs to wise up. Look at the Right. They don't parade guys like Jerry Falwell, Mark Foley, Richard Perle, and Steve Forbes at their rallies and events. No, they use guys like Steve Largent and JC Watts. And if a celebrity, like Tom Selleck or Bruce Willis, is ever invited to speak, you can be sure he's on the record saying only good things about America.

To be maximally effective in terms of PR, the guest speakers at today's rally should have included exclusively:

> Suburban soccer moms (preferably white and from the South);
> Some cute, sincere kid (preferably white) who wrote an anti-war essay or started a web site (there was one of these, thankfully);
> Iraq war vets (preferably white amputees in wheelchairs);
> Korea/Vietnam/WWII vets (preferably gray and wearing medals);
> Some firefighters or policemen (preferably from 9/11); and
> Maybe some actors like Bea Arthur and Wilford Brimley.

I hate to be so cynically calculating, my friends, but we can't afford not to be in such times. You either work the media, or you get worked over. Please, let's not repeat the same dumb mistakes again! Meaning well won't cut the mustard anymore.


Postscript: In a future post, I will share more of my thoughts on what effective liberal protests rallies & demonstrations should look like.

PPS: The International Herald Tribune on page 4 of its Tuesday edition after the Saturday anti-war rally quoted a UPJ organizer who said 400,000 protestors showed up in Washington, DC.