52×52.org

The lovely

Jessica Hische just revealed her latest do-good-side-project called 52×52.org here at BrooklynBeta.

The idea: 52×52.org will help you give to charity, every week, for one year. Her site will act as a messenger, not a middle-man, asking you to donate $52 directly to the featured charity. If $52 is too much, donate $25, $15 or $10! Give whatever you can, each and every week for one year, and together we will make a giant difference. Here’s the site: 52×52.org.

If you want to help Jessica to make it easier to donate/give and help her build out the site, please get in touch with her!

15 Comments leave a comment below

  1. Here’s an idea.

    Get a clue about what’s going on, and why with the current model, there will only ever be more poverty, and more need for “charity”.

    Then take some responsibility for it.

    Then stop thinking you’re making a blind bit of difference to anyone in genuine need. Your money goes to financing another not-for-profit, NGO, bureaucracy.

    Your consumerist, raping of the planet, is part of the problem. If you don’t get this, take your head out of your anus for 2 seconds and sniff some reality.

  2. $52 a week, every week for a year? – How much money does Hische think we all have to spare, especially in the current economy?

    Also, please do your reading on Mother Teresa before you plaster your website with her face. She was far from the symbol of charitable perfection you think she represents. ‘The Missionary Position’ by Hitchens would be a good place to start.

  3. Bob, oh I get it. Hijack a popular blog to spread your virtual filth and hope to win converts. How clever.

    BT, ok, how about a dollar a week chump? Oh, I get it. That’ll cut into your iTunes budget.

    Take a clue from the likes of Steve Jobs, Michael Dell and Tina here … work hard, take risks, and stop whining.

  4. Nice try Jessica Hische.

  5. This is laughable.

  6. Tony, what exactly is laughable about setting up a regular contribution to a charity? Please help me understand.

  7. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this idea. In fact, it’s wonderful. A quick reminder to do something good this week? I love it.

    People like Bob need to realize that not all non-profits and charities are perfect, but some are much, much better than others. It’s the responsibility of the user to do their research and find out where their money is going.

    BT, if you had read the whole article, it very clearly states that you can donate whatever works for you. I’m a full time student, no job, being supported by my girlfriend. And even I can scrounge up 5 to 10 dollars a week to do something good.

  8. Worry not, I read the whole article and took a close look at the website, hence my comment about Mother Teresa. Of course it’s good to give to charity, but the name of the site is 52×52, so the focus is on such a figure.

    For the record I regularly donate to charity, but I see it more of a personal thing, rather than something that should be organised like this.

    P.S. Can’t you find just a few hours of work a week, to help your girlfriend out? I’m sure she’d really appreciate it.

  9. I consider the name to be something clever, rather than an actual focus, so we’ll agree to disagree (nothing wrong with that).

    Giving to charity is a personal thing. But this isn’t an attempt to organize it. It’s just a reminder for people with busy lives who happen to be forgetful. We set alarms and alerts and reminders for everything, in an attempt to organize the chaos that is our daily schedule. Why not have one for charity? Better yet, why not an app that does it for you?

    Believe me, I’d love to be working. Austin, TX is not the easiest place for finding a job right now. I do freelance work when I can and only keep enough for my phone bill.

  10. Yeah, of course the name is a little play on words, and I appreciate that. All i’m saying is there is an intimation towards that figure to start with – directly referenced with the line: “We’re a messenger, not a middle-man, asking you to donate $52 directly to the featured charity.” Obviously it descends after that, but that’s a pretty clear suggestion.

    And indeed those who have pledged the full $52 get the highest position and largest thumbnails on the website.

    We all know charity is an important thing, and If I had the cash to spare every month I’d love to set up a DD. But again this would be a personal, private choice. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of proudly showcasing my chartable nature online, and in some strange hierarchy that pitches people against each other to show who is doing more.

    The sentiment is great, I just think the implementation is clumsy.

  11. Ok, in this sense I can see your point. If you’re wanting to give to charity and not show it off, then I can understand that. I suppose some might find a bit pretentious. But we do, as a species, seem to like achievements these days. So maybe there’s something in that. People like competition, right?

    I would like to mention that from the start I was a whole lot more upset with “Bob’s” comment than yours.

  12. I’m reminded constantly of this little gem from a recent SNL episode ( http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/internet-comments-talk-show/1359602 )

    Why is it the majority of internet commentary is negative? If you don’t like her initiative, great. Why not do it better yourself instead!

  13. It’s out there in the public eye for all to see, so i’m allowed to express an opinion on it. I’m sure she can take it, she’s an adult. The fact I can or cannot create something better is irrelevant, just like you can criticize the film you saw last night.

  14. >> Tony, what exactly is laughable about setting up a regular contribution to a charity? Please help me understand.

    The biggest problem I have with this is that it’s an attempt to make it “easy”, which inevitably means “I’ll make decisions, so you won’t have to”. It also contributes to the social tomfoolery that giving should be fun and entertaining and “not work”.

    If it’s easy and “not work”, then you’re not giving very much of yourself. If it is splashy and public, then it’s not really giving at all, it’s just good PR.

    Something that sends you an e-mail once a week to ask, “have you given something today?” is not bad. Then it’s just a niggling reminder of you to do something you want to do, and will take the time and make the effort to do properly (one hopes). But firing off ‘x’ dollars to a charity someone ELSE picked out, eh, that’s not charity, that’s an assuagance of guilt, probably unearned guilt. “I’m a lot better off than these people, so I’ll throw money at them to make myself feel better”. The latter part is what matters, not the benefit to others.

  15. 52times52.com, the exact same premise, was started back in January by a couple who has chosen to remain anonymous.

    http://www.secondact.com/2011/01/52×52-family-pledges-to-give-52-to-charity-each-week/

    Is she affiliated with them at all? Jessica always seemed like a cool chick to me, and I’ve enjoyed her work for quite some time, but a wholesale ripoff of a charitable concept is really uncouth. If you like their idea so much, why not point others in that direction, rather than using it as PR for yourself?

Leave a Comment