Philanthropy in the Media: Where Art Thou?

The scene: My living room at University Plaza. The time: Tuesday night, February 24th at 10:30 PM. I walk out of my room only to be greeted by faces flowing with tears. My roommates are watching the finale of Parks and Recreation, a comedy-show that ran a 7-season stint on NBC. I've never really watched the show myself but can appreciate the occasional meme on Tumblr or blurry reference in a random conversation. As I perused the internet looking for anything interesting to discuss for this week's blog, I found a piece on the representation of philanthropy in Parks and Recreations. The article, found here, expresses the different ways philanthropy came across through scenarios such as grant-making decisions, funding start-up non-profits, and the sometimes "misuse" of charity work to gain good publicity. It made philanthropy an approachable and relevant idea: "'Parks and Rec' was the only show to give philanthropy a turn in the prime-time spotlight, making it funny while taking seriously its increasingly prominent role in society." But with the show premiering it's final episode this past week, this begs the question where can I watch a show with philanthropy in it now?

Upon further investigation, I realized that the ideas of philanthropy and civic engagement are relatively under-represented in our media today. Occasionally a television show will make reference to it, casually playing it off as a one-time donation to a charity or something to put on a college application. When I tried to think about a TV show that had anything to do with philanthropy, nothing came to mind. I decided to search some shows and really only found The Philanthropist, a canceled mini action/drama series from 2009. The show revolves around a rich, white man, once absorbed in a materialistic life-style, who decides to dedicate his life to using his fortune to personally help others (here is a quick look at the show's promo if you want a laugh). Without even fully watching the series, I can already tell that it completely glamorizes philanthropy and probably stereotypes the needy. Why can't we produce something that positively and accurately shows philanthropy on TV? Why is there such a lack of awareness and understanding of the consequences that come from creating shows as ridiculous as The Philanthropist?

Social media seems to be opening conversations about philanthropic work and why it is important and how to do it effectively; we see celebrities endorsing charities left and right; there is more of an emphasis on giving back to your community taught in our schools. But why can't we see this on TV shows? I'm not necessarily suggesting that there should be a show that revolves completely around the life of a philanthropist, but there could at least be some acts of it in popular shows, instead of just simple mentions. What if the show Modern Family discussed and showed the family participating in community service? What if the girls from Pretty Little Liars decided to cut down on their wardrobe and set aside the money they clearly spend on clothes to communally donate it to a charity? I guess I'm mainly wondering about why our society doesn't think that showing actions like these are valuable or entertaining to viewers. Therefore, my questions to you all are: Why do think there is a lack of philanthropy depicted in our media today? Do you think that shows about philanthropy would be beneficial or harmful to our society?Also, do you know of or have seen any shows concerning philanthropy that I might have missed?

Binghamton's Community Needs

Binghamton has slowly captured my heart because of the strong sense of community that I keep finding every time I go out to volunteer. After learning about how prosperous Binghamton was in the past, it is hard to see so many people struggle with hunger, homelessness, and more. I think the people of Binghamton are working hard to revitalize the area and there is so much that we, as a class can do to help them. Yes, while we will be limited to give our grant money to a few organizations, we still have the power to be involved in this community through our time.

As we get ready to delve into these issues, it is important to look to see how widespread each issue is. We, as university students, will only see the “nice” parts of Binghamton but there is a population here that is having difficulty surviving. One of the reasons I rushed my group into signing up for the homelessness topic is because there is a large population of homeless people here who go unnoticed nearly everyday. I don’t think many students are aware of how great the need is on our community even though many understand how prevalent poverty and hunger is in developing countries. And I’ll admit I was one of those students until I saw two very powerful videos in an HDEV course I took last semester. This video is one that was taken right here in Binghamton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN-9zW0eXVc&index=9&list=PLlw5fHVw804MjPKHSJFMvAgh02EjaN0dc

While we are to compose a small presentation, I hope that we all take the time to understand how serious the issues we are delving into are. We may have preconceived notions of what is more important and should be what we focus on, but this project will let us all  understand topics we don’t really know about. And we also won’t know how great of a problem it is until we research. As for some tips, ask community leaders for help. They are the people figuring out how to solve these issues. From my experience, many of them are very kind and very eager to impart there knowledge. I did a project with a few of my friends and many of the organizations here in Binghamton were very open in helping us. I also think it is important to compare Binghamton statistics to national data since we are a very numbers oriented class. Let's see Binghamton for all that it is. I am looking forward to the presentations next week!

Are We Required To Give?

Hi everyone,

One of the most interesting things I noticed about our class discussions is the collective wince that happens when someone mentions the word “obligation.” I’ll admit that using this word while discussing philanthropy seems a bit strange to me, too, but I was never really sure why. We are all philanthropists in some way, and are definitely not opposed to giving away our money, but for some reason we continue to get fidgety at the idea of being required to give.

When I think of mandatory giving, I think of something like tax being taken out of a paycheck (maybe you picture something different). Peter Singer, whose book The Life You Can Save focuses entirely on what we are obligated to do for others, would certainly not be opposed to the idea of required philanthropy. If we also consider our debates on what it means to be an effective philanthropist, wouldn’t requiring everyone to give – at least a little bit – get us the most bang for our buck?

Maybe our wariness doesn’t stem from any sort of financial concerns, though. Maybe our issues with obligation come from the personal, emotional side of giving. On one of the first days of class, Professor Campbell asked us a few questions about out prior experiences with philanthropy. Almost all of us shared that our first charitable actions began with being passionate about an issue or cause. That personal connection with giving is what keeps us involved, and motivates us to continue giving and doing as much as we can to help others. We all found our philanthropic niches, and it certainly wasn’t because someone made us do it. The choice is what makes giving so rewarding.

In the end, requiring everyone to give could probably solve at least part of some larger scale issues. However, everyone has such a unique experience with philanthropy that a cookie-cutter approach would detract from the intrinsic joy that comes with the feeling that we, personally and voluntarily, helped work towards a better world. Taking away that choice and that pride would take away our love of giving, and where’s the joy in that?

Issue Focus for Applications?

With our work in the community coming closer than ever, we have a lot to consider by the way of what issues we want to focus on putting our efforts towards. For our upcoming project, Professor Campbell has made a list of issues for us to consider in relation to Broome County. The eleven issues that have been pinpointed are as follows:

• ·      Education
• ·     Children
•      Literacy
•      Food Insecurity/Hunger
•      Poverty
•      Health/Health Care

• Sustainability
• Sexual Health and/or LGBT issues
• Housing/Homelessness
• Immigration
• Domestic Violence

The question that I am interested in posing to the class is how will you balance the conflicting ideals of your head and your heart to pick which issue to focus on? Additionally, will you make your personal decision of which nonprofit to support based solely on the individual organization, or will you pick an issue and then try to find a suitable nonprofit that supports it?

Because I can tell in advance that our class will have some very passionate arguments involving how best to allocate our funds, I have been considering my personal plan for how to decide on my approach to the situation. I feel as if putting the issue first will allow me to be more objective when deciding which nonprofit I wish to promote to the rest of the class. If I were to try and look at each and every organization without having recognized the issue I am most passionate about first, I would get distracted from the facts of the application by my bias towards caring more about the issue. If each person in our class were to focus only on applications from nonprofits focusing on the issues they are most passionate about, I feel as if we will have better discussion in class regarding which are the most effective organizations.

Obviously we have spent a lot of time in class discussing the head versus heart debate, but in our situation, we have to take it a step further. Not only do we have to reconcile the conflict within ourselves, but we also have to convince others that our cause is the best using both logical and emotional argument. If each person is passionately fighting for a few organizations that they have done an extensive amount of research on, supporting an issue that they are knowledgeable about, and overall doing something that they care about on a personal level rather than just a cold intellectual one, I feel as if the debate will be much more interesting and capable of convincing others to back your cause as well.

One final reason this approach may be the one that works best for our class is because we have produced a detail application form, there will be a lot of reading to do and many organizations to consider. After reading 50+ applications, they may all start to blend together, but if everyone reads carefully only the applications of the nonprofits that are relevant to their key issues and skims for a general idea of the rest, we will have a class that is more knowledgeable as a whole. I encourage everyone to start thinking about my suggestion for how to improve our process of consideration – if anyone has any better ideas or suggestions, please comment! I think it is important for us to start thinking about this now so we have the most organized approach and so our class might actually be able to come to a decision as a whole.

Oscars and the Donation Dilution Dilemma

Imagine a world where we had an awards show for philanthropy every year, just like the Oscars the other night. All of the stars would be there! Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey. There would be categories for Best Athlete Philanthropist and Best Actor Philanthropist, Biggest Donor and Best Breakout Philanthropist, Best Domestic Charity and Best International Charity. It would be a forum for top philanthropists to share their ideas and an opportunity for the general public to learn about new, great causes. In an ideal world, this might be the one award show I really looked forward to watching year after year. But this is not an ideal world. This is a world where motives are mixed, everything is either over or under analyzed, and we all have three different opinions about the same question. 

If every year the philanthropist superstars of the world gathered for a big awards show, I think three things would happen. First, excessively wealthy people would look to increase their fame and popularity by trying to win these awards. This in itself is not so horrible, because while selfish and lacking nobility, giving is giving and giving for the wrong reasons should be better than not giving at all. The second issue however is that not all giving is good. Celebrities acting philanthropically for the sake of winning an award is bound to generate charities that are under researched and provide more harm than good. Charities that take autonomy away from the local populations, or charities that objectify individuals for their “faces you can’t refuse.” The problem with celebrities is that everybody wants to emulate them. So when they create failed charities, their followers will create or support failed charities too. The donations market will be diluted, positive charities will receive less funding because so many new ones are receiving too much more.

Donation dilution is what worries me. All those others things worry me too, but an excessive growth in the number of charities out there worries me the most. The issue is, we can’t simply put all out efforts into just one issue at a time, as we proved in class while discussing Peter Singer’s ultra-picky/snobby selection of worthy charities. At the same time however, we can’t have an excessive amount of options to donate our money or time to, because this will dilute the donations market. As we begin to think about charities we are going to give our grants to, we need to beware this dilution in two ways. We do not want to split our money too many times, because that will greatly reduce the effectiveness of our grants. Further, we need to be aware of “diluters,” charities that serve to dilute the donation marker more than they benefit those they are intended to benefit. Specifically, this means staying away from organizations that are ineffective. This is not to say that these charities do not deserve to exist, but rather that the kind of help they need to be successful is beyond the scope of our grant giving capabilities.

Giving Circles: Beneficial To Women, Minorities, And To Us!

A recent report conducted by Jumpstart Labs concluded that Giving Circles have far larger numbers of women and minority participants than other forms of philanthropy. Due to their community oriented, low-pressure nature, Giving Circles tell people that it doesn’t matter if you are rich, poor, young, or old, exploring philanthropy can be rewarding, informative, and fun. Scheduling a wine and cheese night with your friends? Why not pool your money together and decide on a charity to donate it to? Rather than spending your evening gossiping, you are now using your time together in a way that both helps you and others. While philanthropy can often feel out of reach to some minority groups, Giving Circles are a good way to donate on your own terms with the safety of a community you know and trust.

If I were to make a list of all of my friends and how I am connected to them, I would find that the majority of my relationships are formed through my involvement in clubs and activities. Once I find something I am interested in, I migrate towards people who share that interest. Furthermore, once those people take an interest in something new, I am likely to explore that new realm as well. So what would be the impact of philanthropy being the basis for that club or activity? How would my world be influenced differently if I connected with the people in my life through a mutual desire to learn how to give? It is human nature to be drawn to the interests of those in our social circle; thus, Giving Circles encourage people to contribute to a cause by making it into a social activity. Rather than feeling lost and alone in your pursuit to learn about or give to philanthropy, Giving Circles urge you to incorporate your philanthropic journey into an activity you can do with your friends.

Last semester, I took a sociology class and spent the semester feeling very restless as we sat in a room in our comfortable, protected, privileged, university debating the degree to which racism exists. Instead of going into the world and doing something to solve the problems we discussed, we just sat there and argued with one another. And that was on a good day, on a bad day we sat there complacently as we watched the minutes tick by on the clock ignoring the immensely problematic social phenomena that were being discussed. Joining this class, I hoped to make up for the sociology class. I thought that if we were giving to real organizations I would not feel like I was just sitting in a room stroking my white middle class ego, but actually taking action to help others. However, I have still had times when I sit in this class and feel that being there, picking apart the philanthropy of others, is more of the same concept of convincing myself I am contributing to societal growth while actually just stroking my own ego. We spend the class time picking apart books written by people who, regardless of their flaws, devoted a large amount of time, money, and energy to making a difference instead of merely talking about making one. However, looking at our class as a Giving Circle has helped me see the merits of our discussions and the importance of philanthropy being a social activity. Unlike a Giving Circle, we did not all pool our money together to donate to a charity; however, we do learn about effective forms of philanthropy and we will collectively decide to whom we want to give the money. Throughout the process we will learn whose opinions with which we tend to side and with whom we tend to butt heads, we will learn how to begin the process of deciding we to allocate a given amount of money, and how a group of young adults can turn philanthropy into a social fad. As a group of young adults it can be hard to find a philanthropic organization that will give us any real power, but being a part of a Giving Circle like this class allows us to demonstrate what we know and how we can help regardless of our ages.

            

How Do We Give

As we approach the time in the semester where we have to begin discussing where to give the money, I am left wondering how do we give. We are not a single individual or a family, we are a class of 25 loud and opinionated students. There has been no Peter Singer like help book for us to read and evaluate how best to give away our money. With the parameters of our giving being so broad, we are left with nearly no direction. So, how will we make a difference? We criticize the Salwen family and the ideas within Peter Singers book, yet we fail to realize how difficult it really will be to give this money away. If we look at the organizations finances, will the “head” portion of giving primarily influence us; and if we only look at their mission and accomplishments, will our heart cloud our judgment?

Furthermore, this isn’t our hard earned money that we are giving away. In reality, Doris Buffet has more faith in us than I do. She has given away $1,410,000 to Learning By Giving programs since 2003, and this year alone will give $350,000. http://www.learningbygivingfoundation.org/ With little instruction but to make our community better, Doris has put money and faith into these programs. We are merely giving away someone else’s money.

At one point I thought that this class was the perfect model for giving. And though we have yet to even begin the true process I can picture so many problems facing us in the future. The reality of this class is that even though we will make a difference and we are learning how to be smart philanthropists, we are essentially being paid through college credit to take this course. I believe that this class will have a huge impact of me in the future. I have never really thought of philanthropy so pragmatically, and I now realize that there really is a right and a wrong way to give. If we look at Ronald Read, a man who led a frugal life yet donated his secret fortune upon his death, we are faced with an example of what I believe can be described as the ‘perfect form of giving’. Mr. Read didn’t gain anything from giving away his money, he led a frugal life and only lived off of what he absolutely needed, and he was able to help his community.  If we compare Mr. Read and the Salwen family, we are met with a clear distinction of character and intention. I read this article shortly after beginning “The Power of Half”, and could not stop thinking about this distinction. Now I can’t stop thinking about how we will match up. I understand that our circumstances are different, and we will give away money (that is not our own) to specific organization that we believe will be able to help the community. However, I hope that we will be able to make an impact and really live up to the mission of Learning By Giving.

Is "earning to give" always a bad choice?

During the first few classes, we discussed what it meant to be a philanthropist. Almost immediately, our small group conversation turned into questioning those who “earn to give.” Are those who choose to earn to give in the wrong mindset? Do their careers disqualify them as philanthropists? I would say no, they are not disqualified solely for holding a job in the private sector. After all, I do not require that individuals hold a nonprofit or government to be classified a philanthropist. 

I definitely see why some people are cautious about the earning to give lifestyle. It can very well be the wrong choice for someone who has no interest in that type of career. But I believe that working for a nonprofit without any interest can create a similar issue.

As of now, I am not convinced that people who hold private sector jobs are consequently selfish or making a poor decision. I recognize that my goal to work in the private sector may label me as one of these selfish people but I also know that I can give more that way. Furthermore, I believe happiness is a key element in being able to effectively give. So far, I have yet to find a job that I can see myself being as happy with outside of the private sector. While working at a nonprofit for a short period would probably be fulfilling for me, I simply have not found a long-term position that would give me the same satisfaction.  By keeping myself happy though a career that I am excited about, I think my mind will be clear and focused on the weekends when I can give my time to organizations. That means that I would be a better giver both in terms of money and time through my private sector career trajectory.

In the article “The Way to Produce a Person” by David Brooks we heard the alternative perspective. His most convincing argument was the claim that your career choice is your biggest and possibly your only priority. I disagree. We constantly balance many things that are important to us. The time spent at each does not directly reflect the importance of each. Some activities and commitments by nature just require more time than others. Through his logic, choosing to go to school during the day means that we are moving away from our commitment to our families. I think we can all agree that is not the case.  Similarly, choosing to work in the private sector does not make my commitment to philanthropy any less of a priority. In fact, I think it will make help to make philanthropy an even bigger priority in my life.

Money Matters-And So Does Where It Goes

As a class we have been highly critical of the Salwen’s, we seem to be annoyed at them for the same reasons; we think their writing style is too preachy and that their method of giving away half only works when you already have excess. I agree with this and found the Salwen’s hard to relate to, they are of course an upper class family living in the South who are extremely philanthropic while I am a middle class female from Brooklyn just being introduced to philanthropy. I agree with all the criticisms about the Salwen’s and have found myself eye rolling as I read through the book, but one thing I cannot critique them on is how they chose what organization to donate money to. I thought their whole method was very effective and thought out and I hope our class goes through a similar process when deciding which organizations to give money to. It seems that everyone who decides to be philanthropic and give their money away faces the same fears and are forced to answer the same questions: which organization should I give money to? Am I giving enough or too little? Should I help a lot of people a small or a small amount of people a lot? Should I give direct aid or donate money that encourages people to build their own futures? There seems to be no right answers but I definitely like the idea of giving money to people that will help their future rather than their present.

Yes the Salwen’s may have been overly holier than thou but I think they made the right choice by donating their money to the Hunger Project. The Hunger Project recognizes that people need to take charge of their own futures and that indirect aid is better in the long run than direct aid. It would be ideal as a class to donate money to charitable organizations that provide direct aid as well as organizations that provide indirect aid, but since we have to choose I think indirect aid is the way to go. We have to think long term-it would be better to donate our money to cancer research that will hopefully one day eradicate the problem instead of donating our money to a company that provides wigs for individuals or pays for one individual’s medical treatment. I’m not saying that Locks of Love isn’t a good company or that giving money to a homeless person on the street corner isn’t helpful but if we all worked towards more effective ways to solve the larger problems that are causing this hair loss or hunger and dedicated our time and money to the organizations that have long term goals I think we would have better results.

I recently watched a TED talk that supported my view about charities long-term goals which inspired me while writing this blog post. The link to the TED talk I am referencing is: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong/transcript?language=en .  Dan Pallotta, the speaker of the TED talk discusses the disparities between for-profit organizations and non-for profit organizations. One of the points he brought up that really made me think was that we don’t criticize the for-profit sector to spend money on advertising but we are absolutely against the notion that our charitable donations to non-for profit organizations go to advertising. We don’t want our money to be spent on advertising without realizing the potential benefit advertising could have to increase donations. He also brought up the point that we think about time differently between the two kids of organizations. Individuals were willing to spend their money investing in Amazon without receiving profits for six years but god forbid if a non-for profit organization spent money on building a scale that would spend six years to see results, even if those results would be magnificent. People want to know where their money is going right away when it comes to charities-blame it on the identifiable victim idea. More people are willing to give when they know exactly who their money is helping and when it is helping them but it is evident that it not always the correct route to go to. Giving your money to an organization that has long-term goals of eradicating the issue at hand more beneficial and will take your dollar further than organizations that help people directly, and I applaud the Salwen’s for doing exactly that.

"The proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gifts."-C.S. Lewis

Disagreeing with an Extremist

In the segment of “Hannah’s Take” in The Power of Half entitled Learning from an Extremist, we meet Zell Kravinsky, a man who “sees everyone as equal, including himself”. Kravinsky was inspired to donate a kidney when he found at that “the risk of dying while donating a kidney is one in four thousand”. With these odds in his favor and the physical capability to make a donation, Kravinsky donated despite his wife’s worries that one of his family members could one day need a kidney. This donation makes sense to me. Kravinsky saw a way he could make a big difference and seized the opportunity. None of his family members were actually in need of a kidney, so his donation seems safe and rational. However, Hannah then writes “Kravinsky argued that he would allow his child to die if it permitted only two other children to live”.  Hannah describes this attitude as “selfless”, but I perceive it in a different way.

I do not think there is anything wrong or selfish about caring about your loved ones. Earlier this year, one of my best friends was diagnosed with stage 4 Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  Our community rushed to her support. People took turns preparing meals for her family, running errands that the family couldn’t find time for anymore, and sending love to Holly is every way. Holly “kicked cancer’s ass”, as her younger sister says, and is now in remission (Go Holly!!). She’s improved medically, but economically her family is really suffering. Although she was nervous and a little embarrassed, Holly created a Go Fund Me account where she tells her whole story (http://www.gofundme.com/hollyscollegefund) and gives anyone the opportunity to donate to her future college and medical bills. (I recommend checking out Holly’s page if you get a chance. She’s amazing.)

 Since Holly posted the link on her Facebook about a week ago, the results have been incredible. Everyone is donating: friends, families, teachers, even our peers from high school whom Holly never really knew. One girl donated $5 with a lengthy, supportive message. Another person donated $2,500 completely anonymously. Holly’s fundraiser page has been shared over 300 times on various forms of social media and she’s already halfway to her goal of $30,000. People are taking the time not only to donate, but to encourage others to do the same. Holly has genuinely appreciated every contribution, from $5 to $2,500 and everything in between. She tells us “Every bit makes a difference”, and she is absolutely right. 

Many of the people donating, like myself, know Holly personally and are supporting her because we love her and want to provide whatever help we can. I don’t think there’s anything selfish about that. Any amount of the money and time that has been geared towards Holly could have been used “more effectively” to treat another cancer patient, perhaps several other cancer patients. I’m sure Zell Kravinsky would argue that spending time, money, and resources on one person instead of many is wrong, but I disagree. Any amount or level of giving for any reason should be welcomed and respected. If personally knowing someone in need inspires you to donate, you should donate and be proud of your actions.

Hannah’s question “Think about the one person you love the most in your life. How many lives would you be willing to exchange for that one?” takes Kravinsky’s concept of everyone being equal to an unpleasant and unrealistic extreme. Philanthropy should not be a matter of quantity over quality. All humans are equal, but human lives should not be seen as a scoring system. If anything, supporting a loved one can inspire someone to reach out and give more in the future, creating further meaningful philanthropy. It is important to give back to the community, but equally important to support people that you care about on a personal level. 

Giving Where You Want to Give isn't Selfish if Everyone is Doing it.

After last week’s discussion on the “The Power of Half,” and our earlier discussion on good intentions, I left thinking about what truly inspires us to give.  It is common knowledge that giving is a good thing, a fact that has been reaffirmed throughout different scientific studies; however, the idea of giving can be interpreted countless ways, none of which are wrong.  The way we choose to give aligns with our individual core values, and this was no different for the Salwens.   From the moment Kevin Salwen began describing his initial lifestyle, it was evident that a priority of his was to spoil his children.  Doesn’t this value perfectly line up with the motivation for selling their home and donating half of the earnings?  Hannah, a girl whom Kevin Salwen had strived to provide every last desire for demanded something that his money couldn't directly buy; she wanted to make the world a better place.  It just so happened that Hannah wanted to make a change, as opposed to wanting a new iPod, but that doesn’t change the fact that she wanted it, so her father bought it for her. 

The fact that this grand gesture of giving stemmed from a desire to make his daughter happy doesn't make their donation any less significant.  How could it?  The town in Ghana received a contribution that had the potential to increase their quality of life, regardless of intention.  Before our first class, we were instructed to watch a video, “I am a Philanthropist: Diverse Voices in Giving.”  The main take away from this video was that different individuals from different backgrounds are inspired by different things, and that is OK.  Actually, it is better than OK.  These differences are what allow each individual to obtain motivation from the world around them, and better their communities, both locally and globally.  Because of these individual differences, I can support the Binghamton community without feeling that I have neglected a town in Ghana, because I know that someone else is inspired to help there.  These views don’t align with the theory of effective altruism that we discussed in class, but maybe there is a happy medium.  By determining where you are passionate, maybe the ideas of effective altruism can be used to determine the best way to give back to that population.  I may have not agreed that the Salwen family made a rational, selfless decision, but that doesn't change the fact that they made the world, even just a little bit, better. 

The Power of Having Half to Give Away

Between conversations these past few weeks in class and finishing “The Power of Half,” I have found myself thinking a lot more consciously about the decisions I make in my every day life and how lucky I am to have what I do.  One thing that stood out to me through the entire book, and in reflecting on my own life, is the stark contrast between those who have and those who do not.  I saw a picture a while ago about the wealth of the world and, although I cannot remember it exactly, it said something along the lines of “if you have a roof over your head and a dollar in your wallet, you are among 25% of the richest people in the world.”  When I first came across this picture, I really didn’t believe it, but as I have gotten older and done more of my own research, I can’t help but think that this source-less infograph might actually be true.  The more I stop and think about it, the starker the contrast I find between my own life and the lives of people who don’t even have enough money for food, water, or clothing.

As I sat reading the Salwen family’s account of their trip to Africa and the poverty and hunger they saw there, I couldn’t help but notice that my sister was watching a television show that took the viewer on a high definition tour of the best deep fried foods in America.  As I sit typing this blog post, an awards show that probably cost millions of dollars to produce is being held for people who make millions of dollars every single year.  I am working on this assignment on my relatively new MacBook Pro for a college class that I pay thousands of dollars to attend. Even Kevin Salwen, a man who is all for donating your wealth, has a twitter account (https://twitter.com/kevinsalwen) that showcases pictures and quotes from multimillion-dollar television networks, sports events, and websites.  Personally, stopping and thinking about all of these things has been incredibly eye opening and the juxtaposition between the “haves” and the “have-nots” has become more and more real with every single thought.

I’m not saying that I believe in total distribution of wealth or in giving hand outs and free-rides to those who do not wish to change.  I’m not saying that we need to cancel Food Network, or shut down the NFL, or put an end to the Grammy’s.  I’m not saying that we should give up a career or an education.  I’m not even saying that I think everyone needs to go out right this minute to donate to something.  And I’m definitely not saying that I am innocent in anything I just mentioned; I overeat without thinking about people that are hungry, I buy things without considering what else I could do with that money, and I am totally one of those people that feel guilty when the United Way comes around once a year asking for a dollar per paycheck.  What I am saying is that I think everyone needs to be a little more conscious of where their money does go and where their money could go.

I personally did not love the Salwen family’s book (I thought it was very wordy and kind of self aggrandizing), and I’m not even sure that the message I took away was the message that was intended, but I do know that the book made me think very hard about consciousness.  We need to objectively take a look at the issues in America and in the rest of the world, and then take a look at where we spend money.  Industrialized societies are going to spend resources on things that a large portion of the world would consider luxuries.  It’s not as though we need to completely give these luxuries up, we just need to realize and recognize how much is going into them and what we can do to help our fellow human beings. Living in America and having even a little bit of money means that we have the power to decide how we're going to use it.  Not everyone is going to donate half of their money to charity; some people will not even want to donate that two percent American average.  At the end of the day, the money that we earn is our money, but it is so important that we know and understand what is going on in the world before we make the decision of what to do with it.