Comic Sues Jews for Jesus

This was too good to ignore:

CNN.com story

NEW YORK (AP) -- Saying he's "as Jewish as a matzo ball or kosher salami," Jackie Mason filed a lawsuit against Jews for Jesus for using his name and likeness in a pamphlet.

The $2 million lawsuit seeks the immediate destruction of the pamphlet, which members of the missionary group have been handing out at various points around New York City.

"While I have the utmost respect for people who practice the Christian faith, the fact is, as everyone knows, I am as Jewish as a matzo ball or kosher salami," the 75-year-old comedian said in documents filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Founded in the 1970s, Jews for Jesus practices Judaism but regards Jesus as the Messiah.

The pamphlets feature an image of Mason next to the words "Jackie Mason ... A Jew for Jesus!?" with information inside that outlines the similarities between Jews and Christians.

"The pamphlet uses my name, my likeness, my 'shtick' (if you will), and my very act, which is derived from my personality, to attract attention and converts," Mason said in an affidavit.

Susan Perlman, a spokeswoman for Jews for Jesus, said the pamphlet was "good-natured."

"Shame on him for getting so upset about this," she said Friday.

Mason has starred on Broadway and in films including "Caddyshack II."

O.K. - a $2 million lawsuit against this nice little religious organization? Has Jackie Mason lost his marbles again? What is funny to me is that this man has made a career out of being Jewish - making himself the "ultimate Jew" if you will. However, Jackie lost his sense of humor when he saw his scary caricature on front of a Jews for Jesus pamphlet.

I can understand why he would take offense as he obviously is not a "Jew for Jesus" - since he's "as Jewish as a matzo ball or kosher salami." But why not speak to the organization first, instead of mounting a huge lawsuit against this non-profit?

Of course, I have to play both sides on this. Shame on you, Susan Perlman, for not being a good spokeswoman for your organization and not showing ANY accountability in this communications disaster. Wouldn't it have been wise to ask for Mason's permission to use his likeness and connect him to Jews for Jesus? Of course he would have probably said absolutely not, but I'm sure Jews for Jesus could have found some D-list celebrity to be on their pamphlet - all publicity is good publicity right?

Here's a great comment from the actual Jews for Jesus website about the pamphlet debacle:

"Jews for Jesus should have known that using celebrity names and images in their materials would lead at some point to expensive litigation. Just because Howard Stern didn't sue doesn't mean Jackie Mason won't. Frankly, it was a stupid decision. And trying to weasel out of it by "shaming" Mr. Mason into not suing you is only making it worse. I seriously think you need some new PR people!"

LOL - right on.

Give A Man A Fish...

After reading Chapters 1 and 11 of the textbook, I am particularly surprised that we have not created more reliable measurements of success for the grantmaking industry. Chapter 11 refers to this as as the "effectiveness" factor and it is one of four major doubts that critics of institutional philanthropy are beginning to have. While there seems to be very good records of the money amassed and distributed, no one can tell us how many problems have been solved through the assistance of institutional philanthropy (IP). I don't think most Americans have any idea of how money donated to foundations, charity federations, etc., is actually being used. We just trust those intermediaries to be good stewards of our donations.

This takes me to my second observation which is that sometimes it is more helpful to teach a man to fish as opposed to just giving him one and I think that the future of IP is headed in that direction. I think that those of us who make donations to various IP's would like to see our money used in a way that has a greater long-term impact, and I also believe that many people now would like to be involved with their giving (e.g., donor-advised funds and individually directed giving as stated in the textbook). In my opinion some of the most successful non-profit charities are those that involve the donors and recipients such as Habitat for Humanity (which isn't a foundation) but is a charity that needs no intermediary.

Chapter 11 really spells out for me that the tides of change are upon us in terms of how IP is going to be managed. And I think it is a change for the better.

Florida, Home of Tropical Systems and Senior Citizens

Ever since my apartment was flooded by Hurricane Francis, I've loved following the new tropical storms and hurricanes as they move along the Eastern seabord. Fortunately, TS Debby is currently looking like it's not going to come this way. But, it made me think about Florida as a whole; two things come to mind: hurricanes and retirees. Now, it's no surprise that a lot of senior citizens from around the state come here to retire from the Northeast, MidAtlantic and Midwest.

But what do they give back to the community? Most people make their charitable gifts to organizations where they grew up. Reading Philanthropy in the Sunshine State only served to emphasize this. A lot of money is being sent out of state to support schools, social service programs, and any number of other nonprofit causes.

Is it "fair" to the organizations down here who provide these services without any compensation? Maybe this is why nonprofits are beginning to charge for their services in far greater numbers than they did in the past. Just a thought!

I love Fido and Fluffy. But is this an example of too many nonprofits?

A little more than a year ago, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated much of the Southeastern US coastline. Remember the images of dogs and cats being left behind by owners who were trying to save their own lives? Well, Pets America does. It is a relatively new nonprofit that started after Katrina to create and educate people on ways to involve their pets in disaster planning. Not sending Fido into a burning house to fetch out the little tykes, but teaching people how to provide CPR to animals, pet first aid, and teaching volunteers how to work with pets.

Anyone who knows me knows I love my cats. But is this organization really necessary? Should this education and training be something that is taken on by the American Humane Society, the ASPCA or any of the other numerous animal-related nonprofits? Could a collaboration have been more effective than trying to start a brand new nonprofit that's going to have to compete for dollars and grants?

"Improper" funding at the Smithsonian?

So I was reading some news coverage of nonprofits prepping for my Philanthropy course, and I came across this gem from the Los Angeles Times on the Op-Ed pages. The Smithsonian Museums in DC operate need an estimated $2.3 billion for renovations, terrorism protection, and regular maintenance. So, facing that amount, isn't it only logical to turn to corporate America for help? If they're giving money away anyway for community relations efforts, why not help preserve a piece of the country's history?

Is it really a question of ethical fundraising at the Smithsonian or the author's misunderstanding of the organization's operations and how sponsorships work?

Would you rather go with a proposal made by Rep. James Moran (D-Va)'s suggestion of a $1 admission fee for each of the museums? I'm not so sure I'd pay $1 to go to the Post Office Museum, but now to see Mr. Rodger's sweater....

Think Twice before you order those Thin Mints!

So a troop of Ohio Girl Scouts are taking cookie eaters to court for not paying for them. Now, the Girl Scouts allowed them to sign and pick up the cookies in some sort of I-Owe-You aggreement? That just doesn't make real business sense. But, read it for yourself on MSNBC.

I can see taking someone to court for the $3,500 owed in cookies (May the gods help that person--who ever needs that many freakin' Samoas?), but a court case over $54? I think if I were the Girl Scouts, I'd chalk that one up to a loss and rethink my cookie-selling strategy. No pay, no thin mints.

Oh no, not more Jon Benet!

Okay, so earlier tonight I was watching MSNBC, and they felt I really needed to know about the capture of the guy accused of killing Jon Benet Ramsey. I won't argue whether it was newsworthy or not--we'll save that for another time. But, I really got pissed when a nonprofit organization advocating for finding missing children and children's rights started using their time as a soapbox for why people should start supporting them. Talk about really straying from the topic of the interview. I understand that any organization needs to try to maximize its publicity any chance it gets, but shouldn't some times be off limits? This certainly did nothing to help this organization's image in my mind. In fact, I was so disgusted I won't even mention them. But, you can find it on Lexis.