[Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana"

[Chan Fu]

On 10/12/05, jkirk <jkirk at spro.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've heard before, probably on this list, the argument that even if only a
> > small
> > percentage of an aid budget actually filters through to the target
> > community,
> > the programme is still validated by that small percentage of good done. I
> > certainly don't begrudge the Khmer people that single billion dollars I
> > mentioned, and surely cannot be understood to have been suggesting that
> > the
> > inefficiency of aid programmes plus local corruption warrants the
> > withdrawal of
> > aid? But one of the points swilling around in my opaque statements was the
> > possibility that by exercising what control we can, in the case of
> > charitable
> > donation by making more astute choices of recipient, we can increase the
> > percentage that hits the target. I therefore do not understand your 'but'.
> >
> > Andrew
> ==================
> Well, Andrew--as I and Catalina also recommended, one of the truly sterling
> NGOs to which to contribute, with good assurance that the money will be used
> the way it was intended, is Medecins sans Frontieres. I am going to send
> them some dough as well as my local RC.
> Joanna

This is actually quite funny. As a certified EMT (and having nothing
else to do), I volunteered to take a trip down there. I was asked my
age (63) and then told , "No, we don't think you'll be needed".