What's Wrong with Charities

I contribute money to a lot of things that can be called charities: Social-change organizations, feed the children, help animals and wildlife, save the environment, cancer research, political organizations--the list goes on.

It ticks me off that so many of them, when you send them money, reply, in effect, "Thanks, but now send us more!"

And I'm getting even more annoyed at them over a variety of practices: When they want a contribution, their solicitation will come in an envelope that says something like, "Second renewal notice," which I feel makes me look like a deadbeat (okay, only my mail carrier would notice and he most likely doesn't concern himself).

Online solicitations have their own particular tricks. They say something like, "If you could contribute just $3, it would help us. . . " Then you click and go to the contribution page, and is the default amount $3? No, it's $25.

Also, by default you are agreeing to make it a monthly contribution. You have to uncheck a box to make it one-time. I already make monthly contributions to four or five organizations and basically do not want to commit to any more.

I believe in being charitable. My religion (more or less) commands it. However, I have found, lately, that I've been giving to so many groups: usually small amounts, but a few dollars here and 10 or 15 bucks there, it adds up to hundreds before you know it.

And yet, I go online and here's a "Help my campaign" or "Donald Trump has done such-and-such, help us fight back"--and I can't resist.

It's been making me do some thinking about my finances and just what I can and cannot afford. Wish I knew how long my retirement nest egg needs to last me. . . .

Copyright © 2018


Update, March 1, 2018: I've continued to have the problem of contributions being made "recurring" when I did not intend that. I am quite certain that the little box, "Make this a recurring contribution," was not checked, and yet this has happened at least three times. I've responded to that by unsubscribing to emails from those organizations so that there's no danger that I will forget that I should not contribute to those guys. And, where they asked for a reason for the "unsubscribe," I told them about this, and the fact that it's made me very angry. Are they going to take any notice? I doubt it. Still, I feel I've done what I could to punish them for how they (as I feel) tricked me.

Update, July 17, 2018. Another matter I need to mention: If you watch much television you probably have seen long commercials showing kids with cancer, who are in wheelchairs and/or have had their hair fall out due to chemotherapy; or pathetic, abused dogs, in cages or chained up. These ads are undoubtedly effective at tugging at our heartstrings.
However, before you send them money, ask this question: How much do those TV ads cost? How much of my donation is going to program efforts (that is, the work they are supposed to be doing) and how much to fundraising (e.g. TV commercials)? You can find out how much any charity spends on fundraising from a web site called Charity Navigator. Me, I will give to them when I see a notice on the screen, during those ads, saying that all of the work to produce the ads, and the airtime, have been donated.

Even the US Must Control Birth Rates

A fair number of people may be aware that the world is becoming overpopulated; but probably a majority of Americans believe that overpopulation is not a problem in our country. After all, the US, particularly in the West, has vast tracts of empty land.

But it is not true. Many of the consequences of population growth affect America, and additional people added to the US population affect world population problems. And even in the Southwest of the US, where there's been "desert" that seems available for development, a shortage of water is going to be a problem. (Los Angeles, basically a desert climate, has been raping the water supply from even hundreds of miles away, for decades now.)

But to discuss all this more methodically:

First, more people means less farmland to feed the world's people. Farmland has been being sold off for "development" for decades now. Some of the best farm land in the world continues to be turned into housing subdivisions and shopping malls. This means problems with runoff and disappearing habitat for wildlife. (Some people surely don't care about this latter but I feel we share this planet with many other species, both plant and animal. It's not only a matter of sentiment to feel that they deserve to survive but we all need a healthy planet that maintains its biodiversity.)

Second, more people means more demand for energy (and one American consumes more energy than a citizen of any other country). This means more mining for coal, more drilling for oil and building pipelines, more fracking to produce natural gas—all of which tends to be harmful to the environment.

Third, more people means more garbage. Plain and simple. The Pacific Ocean has a huge floating island of waste, mainly plastics, contributed largely by America and imperiling ocean wildlife.

Fourth, more people means more demand for the ocean's resources, such as fish. Many species of fish are already overfished and are headed for extinction.

Fifth, as mentioned, more people means more demand for water. In some areas this is already becoming a serious problem. Yet we have our lawns and our golf courses which consume vast quantities of water.

All of the planet's resources are finite: land, water, fish, fossil fuels. Every American added to the world's population puts a greater strain on the world's resources than a new citizen added in any other country.

We need to stop showing approval for large families. We need to stop encouraging large families as we are currently doing by eliminating tax deductions for children beyond the first or second child. We need to stop congratulating parents for having children, especially if it's a fourth or fifth. People need to start voluntarily limiting the number of their children to three.

There are many factors which militate against family planning and population-size control, especially in third-world countries. There is the attitude of husbands who believe that if their wives visit a family-planning clinic it diminishes their prerogatives. The US government, under the influence of political conservatives, has ended much support for family planning in other countries. There is, of course, the opposition of the Catholic Church which is a big factor in some countries such as in Latin America.

This is another sphere where I fear foolishness and incorrect, outdated ideas and attitudes are threatening to prevail and may doom the fate of the human species.

Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein

More on Corporate Influence in the US

I have already blogged about the political influence of large corporations on the US government. By lobbying, and by means of money--their monetary contributions to political campaigns and setting up front groups that carry on advertising to advance their interests—corporations influence what laws are passed, what regulations are put into effect by US regulatory agencies, and what regulations already on the books get enforced. This latter can be a function of corporations—indirectly through Congress—denying funding to the regulatory agencies whose regulations these corporations see as not in their interest.

But here is yet another example of corporate influence. Plastics and other chemicals are being pumped into our environment in inconceivable quantities. We all have amounts of these chemicals in our bodies that could disrupt proper functioning of our bodies because some of them mimic the hormones that naturally occur in our bodies. Babies in the womb are exposed to these chemicals and might be born with (for example) small genitalia. Adult men's sperm counts are going down.

Plastics end up in our oceans. They harm wildlife who ingest these plastics. (Plastic objects get broken down by sunlight—not into harmless substances but into small pieces that look like food to sea animals.) Animals like albatrosses, sea turtles, seals, whales, and so forth are being found with plastics in their stomachs and were killed by them.

Major culprits are plastic bags and plastic bottles for bottled water—both of which we produce—and discard—by the billions. Many European countries have banned plastic bags. But many attempts to ban plastic bags—for example in San Francisco—have been thwarted by corporate influence.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

My Newest Target: Golf

I guess I am a lot like Don Quixote, always tilting at windmills.

Well, my latest "windmill" is—golf!

I don't have anything against golf in and of itself. In fact, time was when I used to play it (very badly). It can be good exercise, as long as you walk around the course, instead of riding around in one of those electric carts which, as far as I'm concerned, somewhat defeat the purpose (assuming that the purpose of the game is exercise).

My real gripe is against golf courses. First, they consume a tremendous amount of water for their maintenance, often in areas where water is scarce. Not to mention causing environmental damage from runoff of the fertilizers used on their grass.

But here's a rather surprising harm that golf can cause. Those who know me know that I like birds; and I just learned that sandhill cranes in Florida frequently get their legs broken by being struck by golf balls. When their legs are thus broken, they can't walk. Sandhill cranes are a large and very beautiful bird and, while not classed as endangered, they are a declining species, so I find it quite saddening when they are subject to yet another human-caused peril (they also get struck by cars).

We can't keep these birds from alighting on golf courses, obviously, since they fly. And you can't ask golfers to "watch out" for them, since anyone familiar with golf knows that your ball might not go where you intend it to!

But maybe golf, or golf courses, should be regulated on environmental grounds. I'd go so far as to say that, in areas where golf courses are very numerous and water is also scarce, the number of golf courses should be restricted.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

What to Expect from Republicans in the New Congress

The Republicans' aims for the new Congress include convening many hearings in which government department heads will be asked to justify their regulations and their spending.

Well, the spending part certainly is going to sound okay to most Americans and be hard to object to.

But, according to an article entitled "GOP Agenda May Have Bigger Impact on 2012 Than on Daily Life" in AOL News: Politics,

The next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican Fred Upton of Michigan, says he'll work to stop over-zealous government regulators. A big target for him is the Environmental Protection Agency.

So here we have the Republicans again showing that they favor business (industry), which wants to go on polluting with no regulation, over the environment and over the health of the American public. Do they need any more proof than what has come to light over five or six decades, that air and water pollution is not good for people or for any living things?

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

Driving More Safely and More Economically

Some more observations on how people drive, at least here in the big city and its environs.

There's no doubt that big-city drivers drive very aggressively. This may consist of various unsafe behaviors such as aggressively changing lanes and weaving in and out in an attempt to pass everybody out (this counts as road rage and could get you a ticket). Another such behavior is what is known as "late merging."

I think there are at least two things behind this aggressive behavior behind the wheel. One is a sort of competitiveness. I'm not sure if these guys and gals are trying to prove their driving skill or to show that they and their vehicles can get to some point down the road more quickly than the rest of us—which might be the same thing.

Another is just being in a hurry. I already wrote about how nowadays everybody seems to be in a rush--at least in the city; if one goes to some other areas, as I found for example in driving through Michigan's Upper Peninsula one time, there definitely is a slower pace to things. But in urban areas such as mine, everyone seems to live by the axiom that "time is money."

Besides being in the main unsafe, a lot of these behaviors also waste fuel. Saving gas, on the other hand, not only benefits your pocketbook, it benefits the environment. One way that I try to drive more economically: I try to look ahead and when I see a red light, even a block down the road, I slow down—unlike many drivers who seem to me to be foolishly racing to get to that red light. Remember that your brakes are basically turning your gasoline into heat energy that goes into the atmosphere; in other words, it's wasted energy.

Of course we have to brake sometimes. Maybe often. But intelligent driving can lessen how much fuel you are wasting at your brake rotors. I try to avoid braking from 30 or even 20 mph, so I try to coast to a stop whenever I can.

Do you brake very often? Maybe you're not aware of how much you brake, but someone driving behind you can see how often your brake lights come on—more often than mine do. If you brake an awful lot, chances are that you're following too closely. By keeping a greater distance between myself and the car ahead of me, I'm able to brake much less than some other cars I see on the road.

And another peril of following too closely: There wouldn't--logically there couldn't--be 30-car or even 100-car pileups if drivers gave themselves enough distance to stop in, rather than following too closely for conditions.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Reagan (and Bush) on Energy and Consumer Protection

News has it that President Obama is installing solar energy-producing panels on the roof of the White House.

This item, and earlier ones, reminded us that President Jimmy Carter had also installed solar panels on the White House roof—and then Ronald Reagan removed them. Why would he do this, when it must have cost taxpayers money to remove them? My guess is, simply to thumb his nose at environmentalists.

Also, as is not very well known, on the day of his inauguration, Reagan froze all funding of alternative energy research by the Department of Energy. I can tell you that a lot of alternative energy research that is being called for today or has recently been started up, was going on in 1981 when Reagan halted it. On the smaller scale, Reagan's move cost many jobs (including, ultimately, mine—so yes, I have a personal axe to grind here) but it also set back the efforts to find new energy sources by 30 years.

Many of the bad things that Reagan did (okay, bad at least from my perspective, or any liberal perspective) were not publicized at the time. Reagan was very popular—remember, he was called "the Teflon President," and the Press was afraid to criticize him because of that popularity.

For example, he gutted federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA that were intended by Congress to safeguard our food, water, air, and so forth. He appointed as heads of these agencies industry-sympathetic people or even industry insiders who had no intention of allowing these agencies to function effectively.

Similarly, Congress passed laws to beef up (no pun) government inspections of food-processing plants. Had these measures taken effect, they might have prevented some of the recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella and E. coli from eggs, peanut butter, and so forth (there have been many in the last few years). But the stiffer inspection schedules were never implemented, because of eight years of foot-dragging by the Bush administration.

Update, August 26, 2011
I recently learned that Rodger Mudd, of CBS TV news, did at the time report on Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House. It was a very brief news item and didn't mention any possible explanation.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Politics, Energy Policy, and Financial-System Reform

Anyone who pays attention to current news has heard about the environmental disaster in the making, due to an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. An offshore oil-drilling platform caught fire and then sank. This has resulted in loss of lives (I think 11 at latest estimate), plus some 40,000 gallons of oil per day are being spilled into the gulf waters.

Such accidents are a constant risk of offshore oil drilling. Yet President Obama recently issued an order to expand offshore oil drilling off the U.S. coast.

Yes, we need energy. For now, unfortunately, we need oil. But it still is surprising, disappointing, and saddening to Obama's liberal constituency and anyone concerned with the environment that he has done this. It seems to be a philosophy of "more oil at any cost." Well, I say, let people driving 3-ton SUVs pay more for their gas than they are currently. They don't care about the environment, and I'd like to see them bear more of a burden for their actions. (The U.S. still has gasoline for half of what it costs in Europe.)

Lest I seem to be attacking Democrats and a (supposedly) liberal president, let me hasten to lay some blame at the door of Republicans. The energy problem goes back at least 30 years. Or rather, 30 years ago, when things could have been done, they were not. The day of his inauguration, Ronald Reagan halted all U.S. Department of Energy funding for research on alternative energy. (I know this because I was working for a nonprofit engineering research group that did a lot of research into fuel from biomass, ocean thermal energy, fuel cells, and so forth. This institution depended very heavily on DOE contracts and was extremely impacted by Reagan's actions, and had to cut, eventually, two-thirds of their staff.) Other commentators have said that we have lost 30 years out of the alternative-energy program.

Ronald Reagan even stamped out or undid what was viewed as Jimmy Carter's last legacy: a solar water-heating system Carter had installed on the White House roof. I don't know what reason, if any, Reagan gave for this action. It was not publicized at the time, if I recall. I have to think it was just thumbing his nose at Carter, liberal policies, and environmentalism.

Also on the subject of Republicans: Right now they are opposing legislation in the Senate that would reform the financial system. During the years of laissez-faire, some of the reforms of the post-Depression era—such as the Glass-Stiegel Act, which separated banking from investment business--were repealed. That was a cause of the recent economic mess. (I think some of this occurred, in fact, under Clinton. Any reader, please correct me if I am wrong here.)

The Republican approach clearly is, "If the Democrats want it, we're going to oppose it." That's called obstructionism. In fact they are filibustering, which is nothing more nor less than an obstructing tactic.

But there is lots of evidence that the people want these reforms. The Republicans in Congress surely are professional politicians; we will see if they are astute politicians as well. To oppose the will of the people should result in their being voted out of office. That message probably is just now starting to penetrate their osseous skulls.

Note added April 29: The news on the oil spill continues to get worse. Yesterday they said it is much worse than originally estimated. Today they said that 210,000 gallons of oil are leaking into the Gulf every day. This promises to be one of the worst environmental disasters ever.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein