Last posted in 2008
Choosing to contribute to a charity is a wonderful thing for a person to do.
When given a choice we can select one that best suits our philosophy.
There are however many circumstances where we become involuntary donors to charities we don't agree with and would prefer not to support.
When I was a Community Chest donor at work I was able to select from a list of over fifty charitable and non profit organizations that my money would be distributed to.
If I had chosen to be selective there would have been some organizations listed I would have not contributed to.
Pragmatically, I felt that the majority of my contribution was worth the minor annoyance that the unworthy organization caused.
When I contributed to the ACLU I realized there were some organizations it has defended in the past I philosophicly opposed.
Pragmatically I give blindly, letting the Community Chest choose since no other collective organization is as effective in supporting as many groups fairly.
The ACLU is dedicated in supporting the entire Bill of Rights often by taking on cases of minority rights against the state or major opinion.
I will be voting for a person in November that given a better choice concerning certain issues I would choose them.
Pragmatically I have no logical choice but to vote for a candidate who has a fair chance of winning, not just representing my philosophy the best.
The Ballot box or similar device becomes my control point for my government.
I could not vote for a third party candidate even if I considered them to perfectly support my ideals IF that vote would mean that another person who won would be someone I would be worse off with.
This happened in a previous election with Ralph Nader's third party siphoning off critical votes which could have tipped the election in favor of the same principles Nader favored..
People who opposed Bush's policies still helped him by their egotistic protest.
He won due to their not voting for the opponent that had a better chance of winning than Nader.
Choices can rarely be made on the basis of absolutes.
We are given intellects to weigh these matters and choose accordingly.
They were voting emotionally rather than employing their intellect which rurned out to be a very bad choice.
Some do intentionally 'vote with the heart' but I wonder how much of that type emotional response is influenced by the hidden agendas of the brainwashers.
Psychologists make good money consulting for people with agendas. That money is usually not wasted.
© 2008 albert vallone (albert 1) - 4/26/16