[kidcolin]

He isn't probably right, it's a completely wrong outlook.

Maybe I'm jaded from spending a lot of time working with the community service center when I was in college, and thus working closely with some charities and some wacky ideologues. I was very picky about what projects I wanted to get involved in. My selection criteria was asking myself these 3 questions:

1. Is this an important cause? (both in general and to me)
2. Is the project run effectively?
3. Will I enjoy working on it?

If any of these 3 was a resounding "no", I didn't waste my time. Some in the office found me to be a nuisance because of this. Others loved me though because the work I did do, I did very well.

You can apply similar criteria to your donation efforts. If you're handing out money to causes just based on need, you might as well sign off your ownership to your money. It's YOUR money. You need to put it to work as how you see fit.

And to reiterate: "need" is too slippery a slope. So you decide cancer is the worthiest cause. Well, which organization? They're all begging for money. They all "need" it. A lot of charitable organizations are big rackets, IMO. They're either inept and inefficient, or very corrupt.

So you narrow it down by picking causes close to you, and making informed decisions within that. That's how effective philanthropy and charity efforts work. Informed decisions made by the donors, based on personal beliefs and a strong assessment of those they donate to.