I sat down with two files open - my Table I file (which is where 20 prompts from table I of a The Mentaliat prompt community on Livejournal are in order for me to write 20 fics. 1 down, 19 to go) and In This Life. I decided that due to the busyness of the next couple of days (meal for uncles birthday tomorrow, followed by my granddads funeral on Thursday), starting a Skins chapter would be the most useful for writing on a bus. Only tomorrow I won't be coming home on a bus and depending on what my mum is doing, may not be going to work on one either.
Anyway, I do still aim to write, of course. Though the aim may be a little harder, but we'll see.
So the purpose of this post - to inform you, whoever you may be (my two followers who have made yourselves known - hi Charlie, hi Natalia! *waves*) that I wrote 628 words of chapter twenty-one. May not be a lot, but it's writing!
Here's the full story up to date if you're interested in reading: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5999648/1/
Tuesday 4 January 2011
Donating to Charity using...a cash machine?
I'm concerned.
An article I just read about something that's been in the news lately, is really concerning me.
The idea that people should be able to donate to charities using cash machines.
How is this idea plausible?
My assumption is that on the 'donate to charity' option you will have a list of charities you can donate to. Or else, how would it work? If there isn't a list of preset charities, then how can you and the cash machine know what details are needed for the money to be transferred?
The problem I have with this (should there be a list of preset charities) is that, inevitably, smaller charities will miss out. Bigger charities will get more donations, partly because they're familiar to the majority of the country (like they don't already get the highest percentage of donations anyway!) and small charities will lose out more than they already do.
I've done charity bag packs, I've stood at the end of a till and asked people politely if they'd like assistance and then they've given me money to support a small, local charity. We've raise a few hundreds pounds here and there, but very rarely enough to support the organisations long term.
Let's say a person got money out of the cash machine outside the supermarket before they went inside, what if they pressed the donate to charity button and gave £2 to a large, national charity which would probably get lost in their higher administration costs? What if they then walked into the supermarket, got asked if they wanted help packing their bags and decided 'no, I won't donate to this small, local charity that has helped me pack almost 100 items into 10 or so bags, because I've already donated to charity today'.
I understand the need to encourage people to donate, I understand the concept of making it 'easier'. But what the big boys don't understand is that the little fish out there struggle more because they're less well known and if this concept only hinders their (much harder) fight for fundraising then it's a very bad thing.
It's part of this 'Big Society' idea, right? But what part of Big Society doesn't support the smallest, most vulnerable aspects of its society?
And none of this even begins to cover the idea that 'the government should try to set as a social norm that everyone should give 1% of their income to charity, or a fixed proportion of their time.' (Guardian.co.uk)
Why SHOULD we? Yes, in an ideal world, everyone would be contributing to the charity sector, giving their money to charities that need funds to continue. Or volunteer their time to support our big AND small charities.
But the idea that it should become a 'social norm that they SHOULD' suggests to me that we're one step away from the government putting a charity tax on every single person in this country, forcing us to either donate our money or time to charity. They've already started with their plans for young people NEEDING to volunteer a certain number of hours at the age of 16.
The artictle in question, which is where the quote is from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/28/coalition-charity-donations-cash-machines
An article I just read about something that's been in the news lately, is really concerning me.
The idea that people should be able to donate to charities using cash machines.
How is this idea plausible?
My assumption is that on the 'donate to charity' option you will have a list of charities you can donate to. Or else, how would it work? If there isn't a list of preset charities, then how can you and the cash machine know what details are needed for the money to be transferred?
The problem I have with this (should there be a list of preset charities) is that, inevitably, smaller charities will miss out. Bigger charities will get more donations, partly because they're familiar to the majority of the country (like they don't already get the highest percentage of donations anyway!) and small charities will lose out more than they already do.
I've done charity bag packs, I've stood at the end of a till and asked people politely if they'd like assistance and then they've given me money to support a small, local charity. We've raise a few hundreds pounds here and there, but very rarely enough to support the organisations long term.
Let's say a person got money out of the cash machine outside the supermarket before they went inside, what if they pressed the donate to charity button and gave £2 to a large, national charity which would probably get lost in their higher administration costs? What if they then walked into the supermarket, got asked if they wanted help packing their bags and decided 'no, I won't donate to this small, local charity that has helped me pack almost 100 items into 10 or so bags, because I've already donated to charity today'.
I understand the need to encourage people to donate, I understand the concept of making it 'easier'. But what the big boys don't understand is that the little fish out there struggle more because they're less well known and if this concept only hinders their (much harder) fight for fundraising then it's a very bad thing.
It's part of this 'Big Society' idea, right? But what part of Big Society doesn't support the smallest, most vulnerable aspects of its society?
And none of this even begins to cover the idea that 'the government should try to set as a social norm that everyone should give 1% of their income to charity, or a fixed proportion of their time.' (Guardian.co.uk)
Why SHOULD we? Yes, in an ideal world, everyone would be contributing to the charity sector, giving their money to charities that need funds to continue. Or volunteer their time to support our big AND small charities.
But the idea that it should become a 'social norm that they SHOULD' suggests to me that we're one step away from the government putting a charity tax on every single person in this country, forcing us to either donate our money or time to charity. They've already started with their plans for young people NEEDING to volunteer a certain number of hours at the age of 16.
The artictle in question, which is where the quote is from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/28/coalition-charity-donations-cash-machines
Read: Jan 4th - Short story 'On The Floor'
January 4th
Read: Grl2grl by Julie Anne Peters, Short story 'On The Floor'
I'm so utterly confused by this anthology of short stories. Perhaps I misunderstood the actual book because I thought it was supposes to be full of stories about gay girls. It appears to be more about teenagers - whether they're gay, straight, in love with their teacher or into basketball.
That's right, the newest delight is about two girls (one is definitely a girl and assuming the match is an official rules thing, the other one probably will be too) playing basketball.
Now that concept doesn't seem repulsive in any way and I actually enjoyed it for the most part. There was a section I thoroughly enjoyed but then they overdid it by repeating the style of short, one/few-word sentences. Despite ruining it's main good aspect, I will still share with you part of it. To really feel it, imagine you're watching a game of basketball and one team has the ball, they're moving swiftly across the court, the other team are defending, doing everything they can to get the ball, then they get it back again. It's all quick, speedy and that's how you should read this, to get it's full effect.
The game. Play. Bodies clashing, gliding, sliding against each other. Grunting, groaning, crying out. Keening, squealing, primitive animal sounds. The pungent smell, the odor of exertion and exhilaration. The salty taste of sweat - mine and hers. Slick, sticky neck, arms, hands.
It's pretty attention grabbing.
Luckily I got a short one tonight as I go back to work in the morning, so sleep is a must. Fingers crossed I'll be able to keep up with my resolution while working.
Read: Grl2grl by Julie Anne Peters, Short story 'On The Floor'
I'm so utterly confused by this anthology of short stories. Perhaps I misunderstood the actual book because I thought it was supposes to be full of stories about gay girls. It appears to be more about teenagers - whether they're gay, straight, in love with their teacher or into basketball.
That's right, the newest delight is about two girls (one is definitely a girl and assuming the match is an official rules thing, the other one probably will be too) playing basketball.
Now that concept doesn't seem repulsive in any way and I actually enjoyed it for the most part. There was a section I thoroughly enjoyed but then they overdid it by repeating the style of short, one/few-word sentences. Despite ruining it's main good aspect, I will still share with you part of it. To really feel it, imagine you're watching a game of basketball and one team has the ball, they're moving swiftly across the court, the other team are defending, doing everything they can to get the ball, then they get it back again. It's all quick, speedy and that's how you should read this, to get it's full effect.
The game. Play. Bodies clashing, gliding, sliding against each other. Grunting, groaning, crying out. Keening, squealing, primitive animal sounds. The pungent smell, the odor of exertion and exhilaration. The salty taste of sweat - mine and hers. Slick, sticky neck, arms, hands.
It's pretty attention grabbing.
Luckily I got a short one tonight as I go back to work in the morning, so sleep is a must. Fingers crossed I'll be able to keep up with my resolution while working.
Write: Jan 3rd - In This Life (chapter twenty)
Yesterday I began a new project which I worked on further today, I turned about 350 words into 1250 words. I'm not entirely happy with those words, but I wrote them anyway. That's one of the good things about writing fiction, in my opinion, being able to write, rewrite and rewrite again. It's something I enjoyed particularly about my story Guilt. I spent months doing just that until I'd actually rewritten the start after the rest of the story had been completed, despite it being the very first thing I wrote originally.
Now with fanfiction, usually rewriting can't occur on a full story basis. Sure, while I'm trying to put a chapter together, I can edit it as much as I like. But once in a while I find myself wanting to change things I've already published...which can't really be done if 500 people have already read it.
Part of me has wanted to rewrite my story In This Life(ITL), which, for the most part, I an proud of. However, as writers block took hold of me many months ago, it made ITL harder and harder to write.
You're possibly sat there thinking, what are you talking about? Does this post have a point? Why yes, it does. In This Life, after months of struggles has finally been updated. It may not be the best chapter in the world, I may not be as proud if said chapter as I could be. But mostly, I'm just glad I felt able to write it. Now I wonder if I'll have the ability to write more, I hope so. I really, really hope so.
Here it is: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5999648/22/
Now with fanfiction, usually rewriting can't occur on a full story basis. Sure, while I'm trying to put a chapter together, I can edit it as much as I like. But once in a while I find myself wanting to change things I've already published...which can't really be done if 500 people have already read it.
Part of me has wanted to rewrite my story In This Life(ITL), which, for the most part, I an proud of. However, as writers block took hold of me many months ago, it made ITL harder and harder to write.
You're possibly sat there thinking, what are you talking about? Does this post have a point? Why yes, it does. In This Life, after months of struggles has finally been updated. It may not be the best chapter in the world, I may not be as proud if said chapter as I could be. But mostly, I'm just glad I felt able to write it. Now I wonder if I'll have the ability to write more, I hope so. I really, really hope so.
Here it is: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5999648/22/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)