"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.



Regards


Donal
--