Cala: don't go out on New Year's Eve. It's several times more expensive then the same thing on another night, and everyone is drunk and having forced fun. NYE is my least favorite holiday to celebrate. (Seriously, call some clubs and restaurants in NYC and ask about covers and drink minimums on Dec 31. It's comically inflated.) Sit at home drinking scotch and reading Dickens.
I do all of my charitable giving locally, and the best model I have seen is TROSA, which provides housing and jobs for recovering addicts, who have a terribly difficult time getting hired by anybody else. I've used them every time I've moved or had a major landscaping job. It's specific to this area, but if there is any equivalent in your local community, it's a very direct way to make an immediate impact for somebody who is making an honest effort to turn their life around. Also, it's important to the residents that you're paying them for a job rather than just giving them a handout.
Of all the charities I've dealt with, TROSA provides the best impact-to-dollars ratio.
1: "drinking scotch and reading Dickens" s/b "doing ecstasy and having sex"
That was the best New Years Eve ever.
Saiselgy and I argue about NYE. He says it's the best holiday, because familytime expectations are min, it's secular, and the everyone gets a day off to nurse a hangover. But the amateaur-hour drinkers that come out and get sloshed by 11:30 are annoying, sez I (and anyway Halloween is the greatest, because ghouls n' goblins).
Agreed NYE is a great time for parties, but it's a lousy time to go out on the town.
everyone gets a day off to nurse a hangover
Untrue! I'm working at 9am on New Year's Day. Meh. NYE sucks anyway.
I'll be going to Glasgow for New Year. New Year in Scotland is (a cliché, I know) pretty good, generally. However, that usually means just hitting a few pubs until sometime round about the bells and then heading off to a party -- nothing fancy. The key thing is to be with funny people who are good at i) getting drunk, ii) being drunk.
In Scotland there's two days off for hangovers -- the 1st and the 2nd. However, NYE parties sometimes continue into the 2nd so it defeats the purpose.
But I can understand the hating on NYE. I've had a few miserable ones down in England where I'd rather be home but have gone out for the sake of it.
Last New Year we were in our local pub* chatting to this young American girl who had latched on to us, as she'd realised the guy she was with was a creepy stalker type and wanted a 'beard'. Weird, but interesting.
Coupley things to do - rent a cottage in the country and go and get monged on whisky for two days? Fireside rug, etc.
* in the middle of nowhere and open until about 4am ...
NYE used to be my favorite holiday when I was in high school and early in college for many of Saiselgy's reasons above but then it turned into a "family night" because December 31 happens to also be my (now 14YO) brother's birthday and it meant a lot to him that we spend it together as a family. Now that he's older and would rather have his friends over for a party, this will be the first year in about a decade when I haven't been at my parents' house for NYE and actually get to go out. It's cool but I'm almost like I've forgotten what it's even like to go out that night.
You know, I assume that this isn't Becks' first NYE. So if she wants to get fancied up and have a big night out, why not?
I mean why not let her choose her own fun, not why she's wrong to choose it.
Anyway, I would say avoid hotels - they're usually pretty crummy and expensive, and the ones that aren't crummy are REALLY expensive. Small clubs/intimate restaurants night be best, although the dancy part can be tricky in the latter. But you know, it's NYE - no one will snicker if you and your date spin around a bit as it gets towards midnight. If you want a lot of dancing, you simply need to seek out live music. Look for bands first, then see where they're playing.
And enjoy yourself. If it's too much, you can always go mellow next year....
this isn't Becks' first NYE.
Nor Cala's.
My ten year old son's birthday is 12/31 so, for now, I like to hang out at home with him or have a dinner/party with my college roomates and their kids. The kids play. We hang out and drink excellent drinks.
As far as giving, I like to support NPR, CASA (court appointed special advocates), drop food off at food banks, and books to the VA Hospital.
I havent found an autism organization that I thrills me yet.
Also, if you do not give to a reproductive rights organization, now is a good time to give. CPR or Planned Parenthood are good organizations.
why not let her choose her own fun
This is pretty convincing. I guess we'd better scrap the plan to coerce her choice of fun.
Southern Poverty Law center is very good.
Aside from Planned Parenthood, this is where I volunteer. They don't waste their money.
I know it's not practical, nor inexpensive. And there are pleasures to be had sipping scotch and reading, well, not Dickens, but someone else who wasn't paid by the word. But one can't dress up and make one's significant other dress up if the plan is to sip scotch and read dusty literature.
I gave money to SPLC for a while, and I got a bunch of promotional materials that suggested (a) they weren't so great at resource allocation and (b) they were moving away from their original mission to engage in more generic warm-fuzzy stuff. This was several years ago, but I remember being pretty dissatisfied.
As for charities, I think Heifer International is awesome. You give money, it gives an animal to a poor family. Water Buffalos, goats, etc. You choose . I'm making it sound hokey, but it's awesome.
Hmm, perhaps I'm reading this outside of context, but it does seem rather disturbing that the SPLC spends more on each of "Management and general" and "Development" than they do on "Legal services" (as a program activity). The bulk of their spending is on "Public education," most of which goes to produce "Educational publications."
Anyway, they do good things but seem to be quite well funded for what they do.
As for charities, I think Heifer International is awesome.
Holy shit, that rules. Buying people water buffalos is charity genius.
Arguably not as important as feeding the hungry; but you might give a small portion of your charity budget to Electronic Frontier Foundation. And, I too like Heifer Project.
(My sister worked for Heifer Project for a while, and back in the late 70's my family raised a kid for them in our back yard until it was old enough to be sent abroad.)
Doctors without Borders, International Rescue Center, Amnesty International and the Heifer Project are all nice if you'd like to give globally rather than locally. Otherwise, local foodshelves, job training, and literacy organizations are also good.
If you've got any left over, the ACLU is doing critical work these days.
I'm interested about the original question's request for a national fund. Do most people like to give nationally rather than to local organizations? If you want to do legal services charity-giving, I suggest you find a local organization and/or one that's not a powerhouse. SPLC is great, but they've got a ton of funding from big sources. Then there are neighborhood legal services organizations that get almost no money from anyone, like the one that is dying to hire me but hasn't had enough money to have more than one attorney for the last ten years (I'm trying to get some outside funding to work there, and I should hear back in the next couple of days; keep your fingers crossed for me, people). Do people do more local or national giving?
raised a kid for them in our back yard
Couldn't you at least have given it a bedroom in the house? Geez, Clown.
Ken Silverstein eviscerated the Southern Poverty Law Center and its leader Morris Dees in a 2000 article in Harpers. The text is available on many right wing websites (like here) but Silverstein himself is a credible liberal journalist writing in a leading intellectual magazine.
In Silverstein's portrayal, the SPLC is little more than a direct mail scam. In fact, Dees background is not in civil rights, but in direct mail. Silverstein's article was also, IIRC the culmination of a lot of bad press for the SPLC.
I wouldn't give them a dime.
My link didn't work. Here
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b81c1e9411c.htm
These are such hard issues. There's always the Singerian thought that, if you give locally or nationally, there's someone much worse off further away, and so on. I sometimes give money to my alma mater while feeling that it's a bit obscene.
24: I'm hereby hoping the Chopper Effect pays off for you and will be sending good vibes your way.
One of the things I really like about Heifer International is that they refuse to do all that stuff where they send you photos of the family who received the particular water buffalo you donated, and tell you all about "your" family and "your" animal and generally make the recipients dance for your benefit. It seems so much more dignified this way, and also avoids wasting resources that could be better used.
A useful resource for choosing a charity is charitynavigator.org, which derives from IRS forms the percent of their money they spend on operations, as opposed to salary, and many other useful tidbits.
Also, to answer Becks's broader question, the Carter Center looks quite good.
I do most of my giving at the international level, out of general Peter Singer/Peter Unger sorts of considerations. Most of my charities are standard: Oxfam, Doctors without Borders. I also give to the global fund for women largely because it addresses one of the issues I care most about at the scale I care most about. I admit, though, that I haven't done much outside research. They have high overhead costs compared to other groups, but I chalk that up to the logistical difficulties of projects like identifying good women's health clinics in Mali and funding them. Also, once your dollar makes it to Mali, it goes a long way. The philosopher Susan Moller Okin was involved with the Global Fund for Women.
I gave DWB/MSF money after the tsunami because I read that they have relatively low overhead, and I swear they've spent more than I gave them sending me junk mail asking for more money. Just take the donation and shut up- I can get spam for free, thanks.
Via CharityNavigator, apparently the SPLC does not spend as much on fundraising appeals as they did when that article is written. Here's their most recent independent audit. That Silverstein piece does have a whiff of 'hit piece' to me, but the core is certainly true, that the SPLC is a very wealthy organization.
DWB/MSF actually wound up not doing any tsumani relief work, I think because most of what was actually needed was reconstruction, which they don't do.
Wow, Charity Navigator gave the NAACP zero stars, and rates the SPLC the highest in their peer group.
Man, that Harpers article gives me the jeebies. $120 million endowment, and $3 million legal services? And that's in 2001. Jesus.
FWIW, Charity Navigator is produced by the American Institute of Philanthropy which Silverstein cites as deploring the SPLC ("gives the Center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors, estimating that the SPLC could operate for 4.6 years without making another tax-exempt nickel from its investments or raising another tax-deductible cent"). So it seems they must have cleaned up their act, or else Silverstein was overstating the case.
Perhaps Silverstein was referring to the SPLC having one of the worst 'Efficiency Rating' scores of any group the AIP monitors; apparently they have increased their "Working Capital Ratio" from 4.6 years to 5.6. For what it's worth the AIP appears to consider a high Working Capital Ratio to be a good thing.
I'm with #9, it's all about the live music if there's a good act in town on NYE. It is tough to find a place that doesn't charge 4 times their usual cover though. You're much better off trying to find something that's trashy fun on NYE rather than classy fun, in my opinion.
As for charities, I'd like to plug one that my parents have both donated extraordinary time to called Health Volunteers Overseas. Their goal is to establish ongoing health care in developing countries by teaching the local professionals and teachers and some donation of materials. My parents in particular coordinated projects in Vietnam and Uganda, working with the faculty at the national schools to update and expand the curriculum for their fields. I've seen it make some amazing differences over the dozen years they've been teaching.
Also, Nature Conservancy is awesome. I always feel slightly better knowing that there's rainforest out there owned by these people.
The promotional material that makes me the angriest is the letter from the March of Dimes that has a dime taped to it. That is such a perverse reversal of the institution's history that I get livid every single time. As if I would give a cent to an institution that throws money to the winds like that.
35 - That's actually one of my personal metrics. I'll give a charity a few bucks and then wait a few months and see how many solicitations I get from them for more money. If I feel they've spent more than I donated trying to get me to donate more, I won't give them any more money again. If they don't, I'll keep them in mind the next time I'm looking to give.
Do you track these things, Becks, or do you just eyeball them?
For those of you not keeping track at home, March of Dimes has an awful rating on Charity Navigator. They spend more of their budget on fundraising than the SPLC does.
oh I hate the surge of begmail stuff. I've told people (in person) that I'll give them some money but not my address. I wish there was always an easy option for this.
45 - You're so hoping I have a spreadsheet and enter in the data each time I check my mail, aren't you? No, I eyeball it.
yah....what I meant is that I'd NEVER donate to SPLC.
44 is a good policy. I gave like $20 to the Alaskan Wilderness Frontier Wild Wonderland ANWR Preservation Society when I was in high school, and got about 30 things from them in the next year, plus stuff from several other Save This Geographical Area organizations. It really made me feel like they were a bunch of desperate losers who cared primarily about beefing up their "number of members on the mailing list". Shouldn't they calibrate their begmail depending on how much the donor donated?
Hey, I liked Morris Dees.
You're thinking of Morris Day.
Last year some time I read just ONE too many right-wing screeds and sent the ACLU some money from their website. I got a nifty little card that lives in my wallet---and about twenty envelopes of begmail every month until I moved away. The ACLU sold my address. How pitifully ironic is that?
It's enough to make you uncharitable if you aren't careful.
Until recently I had no idea that unless you send money to the ACLU Foundation (N.B.!), you're pretty much sending money explicitly to the card-and-begmail operation.
50- I was exaggerating in 35, I did give a fairly large donation and there's no way they really spent it all sending me stuff, it just felt like that, so maybe they sent me a lot of junk because I gave them a lot. Still, I haven't given any more because of how much it seems like they're spending asking for more- not just letters, but honking big brochures and stuff, which all ends up needing to be recycled. Maybe they're hoping I'll give to some enviro org to make up for all the paper MSF has sent me.
To be precise: the foundation is the tax-exempt not-for-profit that funds legal challenges and related jazz.
ACLU is nothing but upfront about it once you figure out that there are two different entities.
http://www.aclu.org/acluf.html
It seems like
ACLU = lobbying
ACLUFoundation = actual legal work
But they seem to imply that you can only become a card-carrying member of the ACLU, with a card and everything, if you give to the ACLU rather than the ACLUF.
The ACLU sent me a fundraising solicitation with a punch-out card in it. So I kept the card but didn't send them any money. What are they gonna do, sue me?
If they do, maybe the ACLUF will defend you from the ACLU.
You're thinking of Morris Day.
"Jerome?"
"Yes, Morris?"
I'll give them some money but not my address.
I've been known to send checks with my address effaced by heavy black marker.
And ogged claims to hate pop music.
Hey guys, thanks for the suggestions/advice--when I'm not at work I'll start going through all the links. Just to clarify my question a little more: I'm specifically interested in poverty-alleviation. Free speech, environmental causes, UCS, etc--great stuff, not what I'm looking for right now. Legal services. . . .somewhat borderline. This is instigated almost purely by the fact that it's cold outside, and for some reason every time I catch a whiff of chill--despite the fact that I've lived in much colder temperatures--this week I can't stop thinking about the American poor and homeless, and how totally it would suck not to have a warm inside to go to. I'm quite aware of and supportive of international causes, and also subscribe to the benefits of informed, local giving, BUT it occurs to me that national funds have a role to play as well, and that I'm massively ignorant of what the good national poverty-alleviating charities are. Basically, a national-level charity is a good means for centralized redistribution---it's not that cold in San Francisco, and some of San Franciscan's concern might be better used in, say, Spokane. I don't really want to do the research to find out "where the money is needed most," so I want someone else to do it for me, and distribute it as necessary. This applies both acutely (think Katrina) or chronically (think Sioux reservations.) Traditionally those agencies are the Salvation Army & the Red Cross. I actually don't mind giving them money, despite their well-documented problems, because they're better than nothing--and I don't mind giving a Christian group money. But it seemed like it would be good to just know of a national equivalent of Oxfam or Doctors Without Borders--and might provide better pressure on the Red Crosses and Salvation Armies to be less homophobic. International/local giving is all very good, but if all the wealth is in half the cities, and no one outside of the United States is giving "international aid" to the United States, that leaves the poor of the rural areas and blighted cities kind of out of luck.
The right now aside, this is all always good information, and very cool. I can't find the link right now, but might I suggest that a neat thing under the Heifer model is providing a clean drinking water apparatus to a village. It's pricier but pretty damn cool.
And regarding gifts to alma mater: I think small gifts are good as a token of gratitude and means of reconnecting, but large vanity gifts somewhat appall me. I was reading an article about how the entire Native American college system is suffering for the lack of a paltry few million dollars, its total budget being on the order of $50 M, and that combined with the glut of $100 M vanity donations to the Yales and Harvards was deeply, deeply depressing. The American Indian College Fund is on my list of charities to consider giving my tiny tithe too this winter. . .
"I've been known to send checks with my address effaced by heavy black marker."
So that was you? Thanks for the birthday check!
I don't even have my address printed on mine anymore. Just a cell phone number.
56: If you do, don't give to the Natural Resources Defense Council. If I get ONE more fat, glossy, environment-raping envelope signed by Robert Redford, I'm going to go all Earth First! on their ass.
Saheli--What about Habitat for Humanity? Poverty alleviation and shelter all in one.
70: From what I've seen, HoH is pretty impressive.
71: I don't think HoH counts as a charity.
Interestingly, Habitat was started by the guy who was Morris Dees' partner in their direct-mail operation before Dees started SPLC. Hmm.
So one of the things I wonder about Habitat for Humanity is its environmental impact. Seems like more spred out single family homes on lots go contrary to the notion of walkable cities, and walkable cities are one of the best ways to decrease environmental damage. How good are HfH urban planning credentials/record? Something I need to investigate. But thanks for the reminder!
74: Your right, but probably not the right place to fight that battle.
74: Casa Verde is an organization that's similar to Habitat but builds affordable housing that's highly energy efficient . The other cool thing about it is that it's a project based education program for at-risk highschool kids. It's local to Austin, but there might be other similar organizations out there if you look.
As for international organizations, I too think Heifer International is a great organization. I also recommend the Central Asia Institute. I just finished reading the book co-written by the founder after seeing him speak at a Book Fair, and it's some truly inspiring and important stuff they do.
Saheli: America's Second Harvest is a national network of food banks. It's not poverty-allieviation in the sense of dealing with the root cause, but it is very darn important.
And per 2: I've actually talked to the founder of TROSA. He's a kick.
I've put Half the Sky on my list in the past year.
I am feeling pretty uncharitable. You all seem to i) give regularly and ii) put a lot of thought into it.
I have (paid) memberships of a couple of political pressure groups [similar to the ACLU] and I give fairly regularly to people in the street, but other than that, I am obviously a tight fisted bastard.
76: not so much a matter of fighting a battle as means of filtering, sorting and prioritizing.
Casa Verde: Awesome! Thanks! Also fascinated by Central Asia connection. . .
Second Harvest: Ah ha! Exactly the kind of thing I needed reminding of. Perfect.
80: I don't give very much or even that often, but I try to do a batch at the end of the year, and while it's small, I try to think about it just for practice, I guess. In case I'm ever rich? Something like that. And I like to be informed so I can be a helpful discussant with people either wealthier or more generous than me, and on the blog.
I am feeling pretty uncharitable.
Your government takes better care of poor people than ours does.