This fabulous little article from The Chronicle of Philanthropy warms my heart. In the midst of a lousy economy, only 26% of Americans surveyed say they plan to reduce their charitable giving. And pay close attention to this stat: 79% would rather have a charitable donation made in their name than receive a gift they wouldn't use. As you're considering how to spend your money this holiday season, remember that most of your peers are shelling out to support good causes, and they'd like to see you do the same instead of regift that basket of smelly bath salts and lotions (you know the one I'm talking about).
Where should you send your gifts this year? Consider high performing nonprofits working to end poverty around the world, your local food bank, or the many great organizations working to protect animals.
How can you get your friends in on the action? Pick a charity or two and tell your friends and family to make a gift in your honor. You'll find that most causes allow your friend to make gifts through their website. If your favorite charity doesn't have and easy online giving option, or if you really want to keep track of how much money you're helping to raise, use a site like Shift My Gift to make it happen.
Here's to the beginning of an unselfish holiday season!
-Selfish Blogger
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Doing a Little is Not Enough, but Doing Nothing is Worse
When I was in high school I was a counselor for a couple of YMCA overnight camps. On the whole, this was a delightful experience. But there was one part of camp that really bothered me: wasting food. The camp directors scheduled activity after activity where making a mess with desserts, condiments, and sometimes full meals was the whole point. The most egregious example was an activity called Bat-O-Rama, where an athletic slugger, armed with a baseball bat, would smash food as it was pitched to him. Gallon jugs of milk, heads of cabbage, melons, and apples would turn into a shower of particles that covered the trash-bag-protected audience of squealing campers. One night of Bat-O-Rama easily consumed enough good food to feed a family of 4 for the day. On the final day of camp each year, the directors would stand up at camp fire and talk about how lucky we are: we have enough food to eat and we have parents that pay for us to go to camp. There are lots of kids in the world who don't get to eat every day, and they can't afford to go to camp. Then they'd encourage all the campers to give money to a charity that provides a camp experience and meals for poor kids in another country.
The hypocrisy of the ask - after a week of wasting food - was lost on the directors. At next year's interview for a counselor position, when asked "how would you improve camp", I brought it up. I said it seemed like we were sending mixed messages to the kids. One day we were saying that we need to do something to help poor children who don't have enough to eat. Yet in the same week, we'd waste all kinds of food - just for fun! It's as if we spent the whole week saying "We're so rich we can waste as much food as we want." I think that's insensitive and we should send a consistent message, I said. Let's play these games with something other than food.
I didn't get selected to go to camp that year. When I got my decline letter in the mail, I called up and asked why. "In your interview, you offended everyone in the room," I was told. When I asked for specifics, my comments about wasting food were the only complaints they could site.
Now, I'm sure as a 17 year old, I probably didn't use the most politically correct language to share my concerns about wasting food. But regardless, no one like to be told they've done something wrong. No one likes to hear that they are doing harm. Saving food from the Bat-O-Rama doesn't do a lot of good, but it does some good. It is better to try and stop the Bat-O-Rama than to do nothing. It is better to speak out against a culture of waste (even at the summer camp level) than to let it continue unchallenged. If we want change, we must act.
Food insecurity, the threat of starvation, is a growing problem. For the people living on our planet earning less than $1.25 a day, a small shift in grain prices determines whether or not they can afford to eat. The poorest amongst us get the bulk of their daily calories from grains. But the growing demand for meat and animal products from rich nations is driving grain prices higher and higher. Some 60% of the world's grain now goes to feed farmed animals. Drought and changing weather patterns are destroying crops. Nations that once had large grain reserves for food security have used them up. The crisis in Somalia, which has gotten little media attention, will not be the last major famine we'll see this decade.
The threat of starvation across the globe is a big problem. It feels like a problem far removed, something that you can't do anything to fix. But that's not true. You can help. You can help three times a day (or five if you're like me). Every time you sit down to eat, you choose your meal and, without intending to, you enter the global market for grain. So how much grain will you buy? How much will you take for yourself? If you choose to eat meat and animal products, you are taking a lot more for yourself than you need. You are taking food from others who need it - you are driving world grain prices higher. 48 lbs. of grain can be fed to a cow and produce enough calories to feed one person for one day. Or 48 lbs. of grain can be fed directly to people and provide enough calories to feed 30 persons for one day. By eating less meat and animal products, you can help keep the cost of grain down so that the poorest people have a better chance of feeding their families. You can take a small step to make things better by changing your diet, or you can do nothing and actively make things worse. Next time you're getting ready to order a burger or a steak, remember that you're taking more than you need: enough for 30 people. That's really selfish.
Eating a plant based diet doesn't solve food insecurity, but it helps. If you are waiting to find a big action that you can take to solve a wide spread global problem, you will always be waiting. Big problems are solved when lots of individuals take small actions. Doing a little to help is not enough to end the problem, but doing nothing is worse.
Check out this handy infographic to learn more about how your food choices can change the world.
-Selfish Blogger
The hypocrisy of the ask - after a week of wasting food - was lost on the directors. At next year's interview for a counselor position, when asked "how would you improve camp", I brought it up. I said it seemed like we were sending mixed messages to the kids. One day we were saying that we need to do something to help poor children who don't have enough to eat. Yet in the same week, we'd waste all kinds of food - just for fun! It's as if we spent the whole week saying "We're so rich we can waste as much food as we want." I think that's insensitive and we should send a consistent message, I said. Let's play these games with something other than food.
I didn't get selected to go to camp that year. When I got my decline letter in the mail, I called up and asked why. "In your interview, you offended everyone in the room," I was told. When I asked for specifics, my comments about wasting food were the only complaints they could site.
Now, I'm sure as a 17 year old, I probably didn't use the most politically correct language to share my concerns about wasting food. But regardless, no one like to be told they've done something wrong. No one likes to hear that they are doing harm. Saving food from the Bat-O-Rama doesn't do a lot of good, but it does some good. It is better to try and stop the Bat-O-Rama than to do nothing. It is better to speak out against a culture of waste (even at the summer camp level) than to let it continue unchallenged. If we want change, we must act.
Food insecurity, the threat of starvation, is a growing problem. For the people living on our planet earning less than $1.25 a day, a small shift in grain prices determines whether or not they can afford to eat. The poorest amongst us get the bulk of their daily calories from grains. But the growing demand for meat and animal products from rich nations is driving grain prices higher and higher. Some 60% of the world's grain now goes to feed farmed animals. Drought and changing weather patterns are destroying crops. Nations that once had large grain reserves for food security have used them up. The crisis in Somalia, which has gotten little media attention, will not be the last major famine we'll see this decade.
The threat of starvation across the globe is a big problem. It feels like a problem far removed, something that you can't do anything to fix. But that's not true. You can help. You can help three times a day (or five if you're like me). Every time you sit down to eat, you choose your meal and, without intending to, you enter the global market for grain. So how much grain will you buy? How much will you take for yourself? If you choose to eat meat and animal products, you are taking a lot more for yourself than you need. You are taking food from others who need it - you are driving world grain prices higher. 48 lbs. of grain can be fed to a cow and produce enough calories to feed one person for one day. Or 48 lbs. of grain can be fed directly to people and provide enough calories to feed 30 persons for one day. By eating less meat and animal products, you can help keep the cost of grain down so that the poorest people have a better chance of feeding their families. You can take a small step to make things better by changing your diet, or you can do nothing and actively make things worse. Next time you're getting ready to order a burger or a steak, remember that you're taking more than you need: enough for 30 people. That's really selfish.
Eating a plant based diet doesn't solve food insecurity, but it helps. If you are waiting to find a big action that you can take to solve a wide spread global problem, you will always be waiting. Big problems are solved when lots of individuals take small actions. Doing a little to help is not enough to end the problem, but doing nothing is worse.
Check out this handy infographic to learn more about how your food choices can change the world.
-Selfish Blogger
Monday, September 12, 2011
Productivity
This weekend PETA Pack volunteers put on a fabulous vegan bake sale outside the Silverlake Trader Joe's to raise money for PETA's investigation fund. I stopped by and picked up a few delicious goodies (the pumpkin muffins and chocolate coconut truffles were outstanding!). They raised close to $200 and, from what I could see, it only took about 5 people to pull it off.
No doubt, bake sales are a fun way to introduce your work to the public and get volunteers engaged. The nonprofit I run holds a bake sale each winter that brings in a similar sum, and it seems to be the favorite fundraising vehicle of parent groups everywhere.
But are bake sales productive fundraisers? Consider how much each baker spends on ingredients and packaging. It's easy for me to shell out $20 for the ingredients and cute little goody bags to whip up some tasty treats for a bake sale. Add in the hours spent to plan and organize, bake and wrap, set up and sell (some of which might be paid staff hours), and the price tag on this type of fundraiser quickly adds up.
If each volunteer donated the equivalent cash they spent on ingredients, the organization might come out about even. They'd save the money spent on staff time and probably get half the cash or more - especially if someone prices your cupcakes at $1 each without knowing they cost $1.50 to make (that's happened to me). If each volunteer, instead of baking for hours, took 30 minutes to place a few phone calls to people they know and ask for a donation, the organization would easily exceed bake sale revenues. Simple! Increased revenues from significantly reduced staff and volunteer hours, but something that few volunteers will sign up to do.
The fact that bake sales (and car washes and rummage sales and other labor-intensive fundraisers) are so popular says something about how we relate to money. More people are comfortable giving away proxies for money, like their time or a dozen cookies, than actual cash. And more people are comfortable asking someone to spend 3 hours working a bake sale than asking for a $50 check (even if that someone is a lawyer who could have billed $600 during her 3 hour bake sale shift). We believe it is better to earn money than ask for money, even if earning it is more expensive for the volunteer, even if it is more expensive for the organization. Dollar-for-dollar, hour-for-hour, these types of fundraisers are less productive than the alternative: directly asking for money.
Of course, there is more to be measured from a bake sale than dollars alone. It's a fun event, so people want to get involved, which builds your volunteer base and makes supporters feel more deeply connected to your cause: you'll be able to count on those people in the future. It's a great way to do outreach: what better way to teach someone about your cause than by getting them to buy cookies? In specific cases, it can actually help some groups fulfill their mission. This is true in the case of PETA, who used their bake sale to introduce the general public to veganism in a tangible (and tasty!) way. Their bake sale would have been worth it whether it made a dime or not.
As donors and volunteers, I think it's important we start considering how we can be most productive and start being honest about when our time could do a lot more to help the causes we love. Look at the well-meaning groups who raise tens of thousands of dollars to fly themselves to poor countries so they can volunteer their time to build schools or dig wells. Without a doubt a new school makes a huge difference for a poor community. These groups are probably doing good work, and they usually bring one expert with them that this type of project needs. But just imagine how much that airfare - that tens of thousands of dollars - could do if it went to an established charity on the ground instead of the Airlines. It could certainly employ local workers to build schools or dig wells instead of college students, and that temporary employment could change outcomes for the families who benefit.
Is it better to do something than nothing? Almost certainly. Could we do more good if we focused on productivity instead of our own personal enjoyment? Absolutely. But in the example above, using the monies more productively by leaving the fundraisers at home means it's unlikely those monies would have been raised in the first place. It's a safe bet that traveling to a foreign country to make new friends and learn about other cultures was the driving motivator for many, and the driving motivator for their donors (mostly parents and friends no doubt). A similar fundraiser to employ local workers in a poor town unseen likely wouldn't have engaged people in the same way - it easily could have flopped and left the town with nothing.
So are the people who participate in these fundraiser selfish? Not anymore than the rest of us, and perhaps less than the general population. In the same way that most people don't think that buying a new car is a trade off for saving the lives of others (it is), those who help with a less-productive fundraiser don't think that they could run a more-productive fundraiser in it's place. Part of the blame for this rests with nonprofits that continue to run less-productive fundraisers while claiming the event is about raising money, instead of being honest that its purpose is volunteer engagement and outreach.
If we really care about a cause, and our goal is to raise money for that cause, it's time we start doing what it really takes: writing checks and asking our friends to do the same.
-Selfish Blogger
BTW, I'm running with PETA Pack. You can support my PETA Pack run here.
No doubt, bake sales are a fun way to introduce your work to the public and get volunteers engaged. The nonprofit I run holds a bake sale each winter that brings in a similar sum, and it seems to be the favorite fundraising vehicle of parent groups everywhere.
But are bake sales productive fundraisers? Consider how much each baker spends on ingredients and packaging. It's easy for me to shell out $20 for the ingredients and cute little goody bags to whip up some tasty treats for a bake sale. Add in the hours spent to plan and organize, bake and wrap, set up and sell (some of which might be paid staff hours), and the price tag on this type of fundraiser quickly adds up.
If each volunteer donated the equivalent cash they spent on ingredients, the organization might come out about even. They'd save the money spent on staff time and probably get half the cash or more - especially if someone prices your cupcakes at $1 each without knowing they cost $1.50 to make (that's happened to me). If each volunteer, instead of baking for hours, took 30 minutes to place a few phone calls to people they know and ask for a donation, the organization would easily exceed bake sale revenues. Simple! Increased revenues from significantly reduced staff and volunteer hours, but something that few volunteers will sign up to do.
The fact that bake sales (and car washes and rummage sales and other labor-intensive fundraisers) are so popular says something about how we relate to money. More people are comfortable giving away proxies for money, like their time or a dozen cookies, than actual cash. And more people are comfortable asking someone to spend 3 hours working a bake sale than asking for a $50 check (even if that someone is a lawyer who could have billed $600 during her 3 hour bake sale shift). We believe it is better to earn money than ask for money, even if earning it is more expensive for the volunteer, even if it is more expensive for the organization. Dollar-for-dollar, hour-for-hour, these types of fundraisers are less productive than the alternative: directly asking for money.
Of course, there is more to be measured from a bake sale than dollars alone. It's a fun event, so people want to get involved, which builds your volunteer base and makes supporters feel more deeply connected to your cause: you'll be able to count on those people in the future. It's a great way to do outreach: what better way to teach someone about your cause than by getting them to buy cookies? In specific cases, it can actually help some groups fulfill their mission. This is true in the case of PETA, who used their bake sale to introduce the general public to veganism in a tangible (and tasty!) way. Their bake sale would have been worth it whether it made a dime or not.
As donors and volunteers, I think it's important we start considering how we can be most productive and start being honest about when our time could do a lot more to help the causes we love. Look at the well-meaning groups who raise tens of thousands of dollars to fly themselves to poor countries so they can volunteer their time to build schools or dig wells. Without a doubt a new school makes a huge difference for a poor community. These groups are probably doing good work, and they usually bring one expert with them that this type of project needs. But just imagine how much that airfare - that tens of thousands of dollars - could do if it went to an established charity on the ground instead of the Airlines. It could certainly employ local workers to build schools or dig wells instead of college students, and that temporary employment could change outcomes for the families who benefit.
Is it better to do something than nothing? Almost certainly. Could we do more good if we focused on productivity instead of our own personal enjoyment? Absolutely. But in the example above, using the monies more productively by leaving the fundraisers at home means it's unlikely those monies would have been raised in the first place. It's a safe bet that traveling to a foreign country to make new friends and learn about other cultures was the driving motivator for many, and the driving motivator for their donors (mostly parents and friends no doubt). A similar fundraiser to employ local workers in a poor town unseen likely wouldn't have engaged people in the same way - it easily could have flopped and left the town with nothing.
So are the people who participate in these fundraiser selfish? Not anymore than the rest of us, and perhaps less than the general population. In the same way that most people don't think that buying a new car is a trade off for saving the lives of others (it is), those who help with a less-productive fundraiser don't think that they could run a more-productive fundraiser in it's place. Part of the blame for this rests with nonprofits that continue to run less-productive fundraisers while claiming the event is about raising money, instead of being honest that its purpose is volunteer engagement and outreach.
If we really care about a cause, and our goal is to raise money for that cause, it's time we start doing what it really takes: writing checks and asking our friends to do the same.
-Selfish Blogger
BTW, I'm running with PETA Pack. You can support my PETA Pack run here.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Even the Rich Want a Change
Perhaps you've already seen Warren Buffett's brilliant opinion piece in the New York Times called Stop Coddling the Super Rich. If not, it's worth a read (he asks for higher taxes on the rich - especially those who "earn" their money through investing alone!).
Warren Buffett is one of the super rich who has pledged to give away a substantial portion of his wealth to charity, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, rather than pass all of it to his heirs. He's seen what happens to children that inherit all their wealth, and knows it's better for the poor and his heirs if his wealth passes to those who truly need help. Well done Mr. Buffett!
CREDO Action has released a petition asking the Senate to act on Warren Buffett's request for higher taxes on the rich. I signed it.
-Selfish Blogger
Warren Buffett is one of the super rich who has pledged to give away a substantial portion of his wealth to charity, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, rather than pass all of it to his heirs. He's seen what happens to children that inherit all their wealth, and knows it's better for the poor and his heirs if his wealth passes to those who truly need help. Well done Mr. Buffett!
CREDO Action has released a petition asking the Senate to act on Warren Buffett's request for higher taxes on the rich. I signed it.
-Selfish Blogger
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Priorities
When I interned with Amnesty International, I was deeply moved when my supervisor told me that Amnesty does not prioritize one human rights violation over another. How can you weigh rape against false imprisonment? How do you choose between the rights of women and the rights of children? You can't. Every human rights violation is wrong; every violation needs to be stopped. What a compelling position. And yet, how very unrealistic.
We live in a world of limited resources, so organizations like Amnesty operate with limited resources too. The act of distributing those resources is an act of prioritization. The staff hours spent, the volunteers mobilized, the leaflets printed to stay that man's execution were staff hours and volunteers and leaflets that didn't go toward helping women in Juarez or ending the genocide in Sudan. The hope is that nonprofits think carefully about how to use their resources - using them in areas where they can be the most effective and make the most difference. Well established groups like Amnesty, with a highly qualified board of directors and professional staff, distribute their resources strategically and calculate where they can have the most impact (even as they believe that one human rights violation shouldn't have to be prioritized over another). We prioritize whether we want to or not, but hopefully we do so consciously.
If you measured where you spend your resources - your money, your time, and your influence with others - what would it reveal about your priorities (whether or not you've consciously chosen them)? My first priority is me, followed by the nonprofit I run... Minecraft probably lands in my top 10. The causes that I really care about could rank a lot higher if I thought more about my priorities. I wonder how many of us unintentionally prioritize coffee over feeding a hungry child, alcohol over safe drinking water for a family in a third world county, or new clothes over a life-altering surgery for a poor woman.
Props to my friends at PETA, who can honestly say that the majority of their personal resources go toward making real, lasting change in our world.
-Selfish Blogger
We live in a world of limited resources, so organizations like Amnesty operate with limited resources too. The act of distributing those resources is an act of prioritization. The staff hours spent, the volunteers mobilized, the leaflets printed to stay that man's execution were staff hours and volunteers and leaflets that didn't go toward helping women in Juarez or ending the genocide in Sudan. The hope is that nonprofits think carefully about how to use their resources - using them in areas where they can be the most effective and make the most difference. Well established groups like Amnesty, with a highly qualified board of directors and professional staff, distribute their resources strategically and calculate where they can have the most impact (even as they believe that one human rights violation shouldn't have to be prioritized over another). We prioritize whether we want to or not, but hopefully we do so consciously.
If you measured where you spend your resources - your money, your time, and your influence with others - what would it reveal about your priorities (whether or not you've consciously chosen them)? My first priority is me, followed by the nonprofit I run... Minecraft probably lands in my top 10. The causes that I really care about could rank a lot higher if I thought more about my priorities. I wonder how many of us unintentionally prioritize coffee over feeding a hungry child, alcohol over safe drinking water for a family in a third world county, or new clothes over a life-altering surgery for a poor woman.
Props to my friends at PETA, who can honestly say that the majority of their personal resources go toward making real, lasting change in our world.
-Selfish Blogger
Thursday, August 11, 2011
1 > 0
In a post in April, I asked you for encouragement to give to the Fistula Foundation. It's common knowledge in the fundraising world that people are much more likely to give if they are asked by a friend, or if they know that their peers are giving. I was hoping that a flood of "make that gift!" comments would push me to do the right thing.
While I got some here (Thank You!), many more comments came in on my facebook page, and they were the opposite of what I had hoped to find. The general sentiment was this:
You already do so much, you deserve to spend some money on yourself. But do what makes you happy. Also, you're totally not selfish.
It's very sweet. My friends are so kind to me. While I may "deserve" to spend that money on myself, I have to ask - is it right? Is it right to spend money on a luxury instead of using it to help someone who is truly suffering? No. It's selfish. I do it all the time and I will continue to choose myself over others more often than not, but I'm trying to do it less.
Taking one right action is better than doing nothing. And if a few of us take the right action together, it's even better.
I gave to the Fistula Foundation in May. I gave enough to pay for the surgery of one woman, and hopefully change her life for the better. 1 > 0.
-Selfish Blogger
While I got some here (Thank You!), many more comments came in on my facebook page, and they were the opposite of what I had hoped to find. The general sentiment was this:
You already do so much, you deserve to spend some money on yourself. But do what makes you happy. Also, you're totally not selfish.
It's very sweet. My friends are so kind to me. While I may "deserve" to spend that money on myself, I have to ask - is it right? Is it right to spend money on a luxury instead of using it to help someone who is truly suffering? No. It's selfish. I do it all the time and I will continue to choose myself over others more often than not, but I'm trying to do it less.
Taking one right action is better than doing nothing. And if a few of us take the right action together, it's even better.
I gave to the Fistula Foundation in May. I gave enough to pay for the surgery of one woman, and hopefully change her life for the better. 1 > 0.
-Selfish Blogger
What do we owe the animals?
This week I had dinner with a large group - mostly friends of a friend - at a pretty pricey French restaurant. Maybe because I'm vegan or maybe because there was another vegetarian at the table, a few conversations broke out around the table about eating animals. I wasn't directly involved in any of those conversations, so I didn't jump in with my thoughts (every time I've jumped uninvited into a conversation about this topic, it's had opposite effect I want), but there was so much wrong with what was said.
"It's ok to eat veal now because they don't break their legs."
No, it's not. It's really not.
"If I couldn't eat the duck, I don't know WHAT I would do!" "You'd order the lamb! Ha ha ha!"
"The quick way we grow livestock is the greatest accomplishment of our farming system."
(By the way, free range/organic is not a solution.)
What do we owe the animals? Anyone who has lived with a doggie or kitty knows first hand that non-human animals avoid pain and seek pleasure like us. They have inner lives. Most of us haven't been able to live with cows, piggies, duckies, and chickens, but study after study finds that these animals are just as smart and caring as the animals who share our homes.
Let's be honest: buying products made from animals is a selfish decision. You are choosing your taste, your convenience, your sense of fashion, and the approval of your peers over the suffering and lives of others. And for those who try to defend their choices by claiming only "humanely raised"meat is in their fridge? The bottom line is you are willing to pay someone else to kill an animal, because the dead animal provides you with pleasure. That's selfish and it's cruel.
But you don't have to. Every meal you eat is your opportunity to be kind. I am so grateful to live in a time and place that allows me to live without taking the lives of animals. You can go vegan too, and there are lots of celebrities to help you on your way.
In the same way that giving $10,000 to charity does more than giving $100, going vegan does more than going vegetarian or just reducing your intake of meat. But does that mean we turn down the $100 gifts to charity? Of course not. Every action on your part makes a difference, for better or worse, for the animals who suffer to become food or fashion.
-Selfish Blogger
"It's ok to eat veal now because they don't break their legs."
No, it's not. It's really not.
"If I couldn't eat the duck, I don't know WHAT I would do!" "You'd order the lamb! Ha ha ha!"
"The quick way we grow livestock is the greatest accomplishment of our farming system."
(By the way, free range/organic is not a solution.)
What do we owe the animals? Anyone who has lived with a doggie or kitty knows first hand that non-human animals avoid pain and seek pleasure like us. They have inner lives. Most of us haven't been able to live with cows, piggies, duckies, and chickens, but study after study finds that these animals are just as smart and caring as the animals who share our homes.
Let's be honest: buying products made from animals is a selfish decision. You are choosing your taste, your convenience, your sense of fashion, and the approval of your peers over the suffering and lives of others. And for those who try to defend their choices by claiming only "humanely raised"meat is in their fridge? The bottom line is you are willing to pay someone else to kill an animal, because the dead animal provides you with pleasure. That's selfish and it's cruel.
But you don't have to. Every meal you eat is your opportunity to be kind. I am so grateful to live in a time and place that allows me to live without taking the lives of animals. You can go vegan too, and there are lots of celebrities to help you on your way.
In the same way that giving $10,000 to charity does more than giving $100, going vegan does more than going vegetarian or just reducing your intake of meat. But does that mean we turn down the $100 gifts to charity? Of course not. Every action on your part makes a difference, for better or worse, for the animals who suffer to become food or fashion.
-Selfish Blogger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)