A question of intentions, integrity, and the means to an end
Is it just me, or have material donation incentives given out by representing charities and non-profit organizations become far more common in the last 10 years?
You know you’ve seen it, probably even donated money for it… A dollar for a blue silicon bracelet with an inspirational “stop prostate cancer” saying… A cute pink pen for donating a minimum of two dollars to stop breast cancer… A heart-shaped pin with a child’s drawing engraved in it for donating to children’s charities… Baring your boobies (or donating money to see said pictures) to raise money for breast cancer research…
All those organizations could have saved the money spent on producing such promotional “thank you for donating” material and put it towards their cause. Why is it that these organizations think we need to get stuff in return to “do the right thing”? I’d be perfectly happy donating to a good cause without getting anything in return. At the very least, they could send a mass heartfelt thank you email out to all donators. Why go to such lengths?
Have we become so material-orientated that we are less inclined to donate to a cause or organization if they have nothing to “offer” us? And if not, then why do these organizations seem to have this impression? Don’t tell me it’s a way of saying “thank you” to its donators - I don’t believe that for a second. It might be partially true, but I highly doubt that is the total and complete reason.
I understand that most people are naturally drawn to “stuff”, and as a result will probably be more motivated to donate if they are given something in return, but personally I think the money spent on little “thank you” materials could be better used somewhere else, even if it turns out to be a small and relatively insignificant amount. There are other less expensive ways of promoting and advocating the donation of money to worthy causes.
To be honest, if anything, organizations that offer such materials make me suspicious and doubtful of their claims. How do I really know my money donated isn’t going towards something other than the cause itself? In many cases, they often do not tell you that a portion of the proceed goes towards the actual cause. A portion? A portion of a dollar?
Yeah, that’s sure going to change the world.
I hate being so pessimistic and negative, but in this day and age, believing everything you are told and taking everything for face value makes you a fool. Does it help you sleep better at night knowing you’ve done your part to help discover a cure for breast cancer by giving them a dollar and getting a silly bracelet in return? (And don’t even get me started on the direction “a cure for cancer” is heading, or how corrupted the BCCA is in terms of pushing drugs and unnatural means, downplaying natural remedies as possible means to a cure!)
I think the old-fashioned way was the best. If you want to make a difference in this world and actually do something, forget going through glitzy promotional 3rd party organizations. Want to help starving people in 3rd world countries? Get out there and do it yourself, or really do your research and help fund a genuine, committed person or organization of persons to do it.
I believe Margaret Mead, an anthropologist, scientist and intellectual said it best when she said “Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Out of curiosity, I have to wonder: Would you donate money to a cause or organization if you got nothing back in return? Do materialistic incentives such as pens, bracelets, etc. actually motivate you to give back, or would less tangible things such as a report about how your money is being used be sufficient?
Morbid fascination: Why?
You’re driving along a street, fretting over all the things you need to be done today. Traffic starts to slow down, eventually taking the pace of a crawl. You start to get agitated. Why now? You’ve got things to do, places to be! You see flashing lights ahead, and suddenly it dawns on you: there is an accident ahead. How do you feel?
When it’s your turn to pass by the crash scene, do you crane your neck to see what’s going on, or do you avert your gaze and ignore the scene completely? If you’re one of those people who look every time, what do you hope to see? Wreckage? Triggered airbags? Blood? Dead bodies?
Why are we so fascinated with the “bad” stuff?
It’s the same thing with accidents-to-be. Some people close their eyes, or turn away, but other just stare wide-eyed, frozen, often wanting, willing too look away, but unable to do so. It’s like seeing two trains on the same track, heading straight towards each other. There is something magnetic about disasters that keep so many of us just glued. It’s not that they entertains us, amuses us, or that we even like them—It’s just that, well, we can’t pull away.
For some, it’s the TV coverage on disasters like 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina that we can’t seem to tear away from. It appalls us, grieves us, makes us sick to our stomaches, but we don’t (or can’t) stop watching.
We cling to every heartbreaking clip, every shocking picture, and every nauseating piece of news, forcing ourselves to sit through a blow-by-blow account of what happened, what is happening, and the implications of everything that has happened thus far. It leaves us feeling sad, sick, angry, upset, and every other conceivable negative emotion, and yet we still watch.
We could keep ourselves informed of such disasters through non-descriptive newsfeeds sans the multimedia, but instead, we choose the form that envelopes us in the horror.
Why?
For me, my morbid fascination is airline crashes. It is most puzzling to me because up until a few years ago, I was terrified of flying. Now, years later, I’m… not. I love planes, airports, security checkpoints (that’s another story all in itself), and landings. I also love researching plane crashes, strange and unexplainable plane issues and disasters (ever heard of that Hawaiian flight between Islands that had the top half of the plane—the roof—ripped out mid-flight? Everyone except one flight attendant survived) and watching Mayday.
I think having a couple pilots as friends and acquaintances helped a great deal. That, and just getting up there and flying; when you’re in a plane every couple months, the whole ordeal becomes routine procedure quickly, much like driving. However, after reading about the statistics on plane crashes and learning that the majority of complications occur during take off and landing, I still find myself a tad nervous during accent and decent. Why do I subject myself to useless knowledge? I choke it up to an insatiably curious nature: I must know everything, even if the newfound knowledge has a negative impact on me. Knowing which airlines have had crashes and which have not, or looking up videos/pictures/investigation notes from those crashes is essentially “useless” knowledge, but I pursue it anyway.
So, I ask you: Why do you think people are oddly fascinated with morbid things? Do you have any morbid fascinations? If so, what are they?
A question of social chemistry
What exactly is chemistry between two people? Few people actually seem to be able to define it. For the most part, the majority of us have never given it a deeper thought, or if we have, we came to the highly logical definition of “that intangible something”… But does that really explain anything?
When I was first brought with this question of human chemistry, I was both completely mystified and very curious. Like most people, I’d never really stopped to think about it. But if chemistry in the social world is anything like chemistry is in the physical world, there has to be a logical, tangible definition.
Unsurprisingly, there is: In the physical world, “chemistry” explains how elements combine, behave, and relate to one another. In the social world, “chemistry” explains how individuals combine, behave, and relate to one another. With that technical definition of social chemistry, it brings up another question: What creates chemistry? I have a theory.
Ring ring ring, BANANA PHONE!
I am getting awfully sick of tech trends.
As of lately, iPods were the latest measure of how cool you were. The bigger the space, the more gazillions songs it could hold, and the slimmer it was, the cooler you were. They were, if not still are, somewhat of a fashion statement. “Match your iPod with your outfit!” was the subliminal message the cult of Mac was screaming at its devoted followers and prospect converts.
I almost go sucked into it. When I was shopping around for an MP3 player around Christmas time, the lime green iPod Nano was looking rather delicious—Looking being the keyword here. All my friends, many of them already devote members of the Cult of Mac, were gunning for me and my lime green iPod Nano soulmate. But then I started thinking with my brain instead of my eyes.
Has anyone ever bothered comparing the features of an iPod to other competitive MP3 players? Once I started doing my research, I soon discovered that my engagement with the lime green iPod nano was going to have to end. It just didn’t cut it. I found true musical love with the Sansa. For the same price (or cheaper) it had more space and more features than its comparable iPod relative. Why on earth would you buy an iPod Nano when you could own a Sansa e280 and get FM radio (& recording), Music, Movies, Pictures, and Voice recording for almost the same size and a cheaper price? It even has a scroll wheel!
They say that sales is 20% logic and 80% emotion. I read that in a book somewhere. Are we even truly aware of how the sales industry is approaching sales these days? It is interesting to note that the best salespeople are the ones that never seem like they’re selling you somthing, but rather, subliminally manipulate you into selling that product or service to yourself.
And then there is the latest mobile phone craze. What do RAZR, KRZR, SLVR, PEBL, and RIZR all have in common? Well, aside from being a set of arranged characters a couple letters short of actual words, they’re also outrageously expensive phones nobody actually needs but everyone wants.
I was recently at a high school grad showcase (fancy word for grade 12 only talent show) where I happened to witness just a prime example of what I’d consider the mobile phone companies’ prime targets: overtalkative teenagers.
Girl: “Oh my gosh, this is a THREE MEGAPIXEL CAMERA!”
(I dryly remark that my first digital camera wasn’t even that)
Guy: “Forget that, I have a SIX megapixel camera on my phone at home”
(I silently wonder just how many phones he has?)
Girl: Runs thumb over glass screen Wow, this phone is amazing.
Guy: (Looking smug now)
One out of every three or four kids there had their mobile phone out and were looking at it. How did I know this? Simple. The auditorium was poorly lit until they starting pulling out their phones—It was a safe guess judging by the blueish glow the room took on.
I’m not old. I don’t consider myself majorly “out of the loop” when it comes to technology. But somehow, just somehow, I missed the cinching point where mobile phones went from “a cordless phone I can use anywhere” to “a slim, slick, thin, sexy sliver of technology that not only happens to be a phone, but also mp3 player! and a high-quality camera! and a video camera! and a PDA! and everything else you could ever dream of but will probably never use!”
… And by the way, since when did cell phones have six megapixels?
