Donal wrote:
"katysails" wrote in message
...
In order for those children to receive the $15, the
original donation would have to be more like %250 to
cover the costs of management fees,
etc....

I think that you have been subjected to propoganda.

There are many disreputable charities who deliver very
little of their income to the needy. However, most
mainstream charities are quite efficient. The St.
Vincent de Paul, for example, spends 90% of its income on
the needy.

http://www.cdi.gov.au/submissions/19...centDePaul.doc


There is nothing wrong with taking care of one of God's
creatures
that you love, be it pet or another human being. Most
people who are generous and kind to pets are also
generous and kind in charitable giving. People who are
mean to animals generally don't give a rat's ass about
people at all...

That sounds really nice. In fact I'd suggest that it is
politically correct rubbish.

You are mistaken when you say that people who spend money
on their pets are "generous". Most pets are, in fact, a
substitute for family/lovers/slaves. People who own
pets are seeking affection or obedience, and are far more
likely to be self centred than non-pet owners.

Sell your freaking boat and feed the whole continent

Regards


Donal
--