Here is my reponse to some of your comments. I've tried to organize it so you can choose to read only the parts that interest you.
1)
Re: this being my personal decision. KS and Slut, I realize this is at my discretion and that I can decide. However, the way I see it whether I do this anonymously or in the name of whorticulturists everywhere, its also in a way a contribution from all of you. Any profit my site makes comes from either donations of others or commissions from anyone joining CRT through my site. The draw is the information here and the information I largely derived from all of you and incorporated in the Map. So at the very least I'd like to consider all your opinions.
2)
Re: taking credit Zippy, some may see it as guilt money. Others will see it to mean exactly what it does, that we're just as concerned about these issues as anyone else, if not more so. I can't help about the cynics, but they've already made up their minds about us anyway. So where's the harm there. As for the others, maybe that will change a few minds. We can't just ignore the problem, or go on denying that at least some creeps walk amongst us when we're down in CR. We have to show that we're willing to be proactive and do something to address the problems ourselves or someone else will be more likely to do it for us in ways that we may not care for.
I agree anonymity is usually the classiest way to go (notice I never mentioned doing this in the name of Prolijo). Sometimes I make my personal contributions that way, sometimes I don't (mainly for tax reasons). But that doesn't mean I'm making contributions just to get a tax break. And this doesn't mean we're doing this just to try to send some sort of message, but if we can do it and have it make some positive effect on the perceptions of others as well as helping the Ch*ldren or whatever, why not?
Frankly, I'm more concerned about whether to bring in the CRT name (which is a basically a private business) without its consent. If I were to go non-anonymous route at all it would more likely be under some assumed name like the "American Sex Tourists Relief Organization" (ASTRO).
3)
Re: local giving Circus's commented about charity beginning at home: There are certainly valid arguments for local giving. I think giving where it is needed most is equally valid. I already pay taxes, most of which go to domestic aid programs rather than overseas. One might question the effectiveness of government spending, but the problem is not one of funding relative to the funding and relative need overseas. Having been to numerous 3rd world countries including Haiti (the poorest country in the this half of the world) and Cambodia (a country devastated by years of war and genocide), I know directly there is little in this country that compares to the need of those other places. There is certainly hunger in the US, but there is widespread starvation in other countries. In this country we worry about diseases of aging or ones brought on by our own unhealthy lifestyles. In other countries they suffer from high rates of infant mortality and diseases that result from the lack of clean water or the availability of cheap medicines. I'd also argue that making a contribution in CR is making a contribution close to home. Most of us go there regularly. Some of us even live there. We've all made friends with Tico's and enjoyed their hospitality. This is our chance to give something back to a country that has given so much to us.
4)
Re: direct personal giving. Several of you made comments about doing this directly on a personal basis rather in a more organized manner through an established charity. The most that I'd be able to do would be to make a few handouts. As many have seen or learned for themselves, just giving money to a "working girl" is like throwing money down a black (or pink hole). It wouldn't be much different giving it anywhere else. Certainly one could not expect street people either in CR or the US to be any more responsible.
5)
Re: El C's suggestion on setting up a semi-organized CRT charity. At this point in time the amount of excess funds we're talking about is not enough to establish some sort of CRT foundation. I've also thought about CRT starting some sort of group charity effort like a "Toys for Tots" program where we give out gifts to our chica's ninos at christmas time. Talk about the danger of others misreading our intentions. I don't think too much
direct involvement with Ch*ldren is a particularly good idea. We could also have a give-away program of food, clothing and household goods to our chicas, but I don't see that being much different from the individual efforts some of us are already doing. I'm not thinking about charity for chicas that we're already paying very well for their services. I'm thinking of charity for those that really want out of the business and for those that might otherwise be drawn into the business and then trapped there due to circumstances beyond their control.
6)
Re: control over spending. Some have tried to establish some sort of control to see the money goes for what it was intended, with at best limited success. For example, paying the money directly to a school for a chica's tuition. It still winds up wasted when she drops out or fails to study. Isn't it better to give money to a training program to educate women that really want to be there and apply themselves? It works the same here in the US. One can give money to a needy family or even buy them groceries to see it is spent right. It doesn't change the fact that just frees up the limited money they have themselves to spend on lottery tickets, Mad Dog or whatever. And no amount of personal involvement short of living with them and monitoring their expenditures 24/7 is going to change that. When it comes to charity most of us have more money than time available to give and we're not going to have the type of time to oversee our contributions whereever it is going than the established charities have. When it comes to charity, no matter what form, a certain amount of waste is inevitable. That doesn't mean we should stop trying.
7)
Re: squandered funds. Circus talked about how most of the international aid agencies he has been involved with squander their funds. I'm sorry that has been his experience. The same could be said for many domestic agencies as well. Stories like that is why I'm careful about who I give to. I don't have the time to personally monitor charities, whether overseas, here at home or ones I'm directly involved with. And its not really necessary. There are independent watchdog groups that already do that for me.
http://www.charitywatch.org and
http://www.charitynavigator.org are just 2 of them. The charities I give to all get 4 stars and an AIP rating of A or better. In contrast, the local United Way in my area gets only 2 stars and the Habitat for Humanity that I've actually done volunteer work for only gets 1 star. Don't even get me started on the various outfits like the PBA which if you're lucky gets 1 penny of every dollar you send
http://www.newtimesbpb.com/Issues/2005-03-10/news/news2.html.
Re: sponsorship agencies. Circus also made a comment about sponsorship money not going to the Ch*ldren and family it was intended. I hope not. I realize the Ch*ldren are only a marketing approach to personalize and humanize what your donation is for. Actually, I never intended my donations to be spent that way. I already explained above why direct payments are not the best way to go. Collective efforts are much more effective, paying for supplies and local labor to build such things as wells, schools and clinics or supplying power generators so farmers can learn modern farming techniques from satellite broadcasts beamed into their new community television set.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
