Ultimately, isn't what matters that the most aid possible gets to where it's needed? I don't understand the criticism of organizations that spend money on "overhead."<p>I think Dan Pollatta's book, Uncharitable, is pretty interesting. In your comments on the other thread you talk about not accepting the status quo and having a hacker attitude towards charity, but it seems like your criticisms of the Red Cross are because they aren't status quo enough -- they spend some non-zero amount on things other than direct aid.<p>We should judge a charity on it's efficacy, not its tactics. If it costs $500,000 a year to convince the most talented people to spend their time working with a charitable organization, and if that person proves to be worth the money, why shouldn't that be encouraged?