Is United States Doing Enough In Asian Event?

[jim stone]

My concern is that all the contributions pouring into these nations will not reach the people in need, but fatten the pockets of various government officials ... as has happened too many times. The magnitude of this tragedy is totally inconceivable, to me. And this petty bickering about which country is giving more or can give more is freaking ridiculous, IMO. It seems that the USA gets flak for interferring too much in other nations' concerns ... or gets flak from not helping enough. That's just the same old ... stuff.

The only important thing is to give -- through an agency you trust to actually provide assistance ... and to thank God (or whatever alternate deity you chose) if your family is safe and sound tonight.

~Judy

Again, the prevailing wisdom is that one of the best and
surest ways to get the most 'bang for your buck,' in getting
immediate relief to the people most in need right now,
is the International Red Cross.

[jkrazy52]

Again, the prevailing wisdom is that one of the best and
surest ways to get the most 'bang for your buck,' in getting
immediate relief to the people most in need right now,
is the International Red Cross.

... but don't tell my Dad. He still grumbles about the Red Cross selling coffee to the troops during WWII, when the Salvation Army provided it for free.

~Judy

[Lambchop]

... but don't tell my Dad. He still grumbles about the Red Cross selling coffee to the troops during WWII, when the Salvation Army provided it for free.

~Judy

So does my mother! She grumbled about that constantly. I never believed the stories of how she had to travel to Miami standing up the whole way on troop train, in high heels ( :roll: )carrying my brother (he's MUCH older, thank you!), going to meet my dad, and everyone was so grateful when the Red Cross gave them coffee and donuts . . . until they handed them each a bill.

I believe it now. After a family death, I had to take emergency leave from the military for the funeral. In order for that to be approved, you had to have the Red Cross verify it. I had to make a ridiculous number of long-distance calls to get them to do it, as all the local folks were closed for a weekend and they didn't know who was in charge, and then they took so long to do it that I nearly missed the funeral. They weren't even nice about it.

Two weeks after, I opened an envelope from them expecting to be hit up for a donation. It was not a request for a donation. They'd sent me a bill. It was not an inconsequential sum, either.

And then, when I got my phone bill, I discovered that they had charged still more long-distance calls to it--more than they'd needed to verify my situation. Looked like they'd just used my number the whole rest of the day.

I did call them to complain about the phone calls. They told me to consider them charitable donations. Grrr.

[Flyingcursor]

CNN.com now how the toll at 118,000. I have to say in all honesty that I just can't wrap my head around it. None of us can. The ones of us that think we can are wrong.

http://chiffandfipple.com/toll.html

Dale

That's for sure. The most dead people I've ever seen at once is five in a morgue and three at an accident scene. Still way too many. Numbers like 100,000 might as well be infinity.

Here's an interesting article: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3946534

While people bicker about dollar amounts and death tolls, living people are starving.

[jim stone]

I did finally find out more about Oxfam; lots of reading.
For those, like myself, who believe that abortion is the killing
of children, Oxfam appears to be strongly
pro-abortion, although this agenda is pretty covert as
far as their fund-raising and advertising goes. Having
lived for years in some
of the most poverty stricken countries
on earth, I welcome an emphasis on the needs
of women, however I do not believe that ideological
feminism, which Oxfam appears to represent,
answers these adequately, and I am very afraid
for children, expecially female children.
My impression is that Oxfam is
pretty politicized, FWIW. Those who have no difficulty
with the politics will have no difficulty
with Oxfam, of course--at least not
on that score.

Whatever one's stance on these
issues, I find some of these organizations
less than transparent about their agenda.
Code words often substitute for forthright
statements. One does need to check
pretty carefully to know what purposes
one's money will really serve, finally, perhaps
not in a crisis like this one, but over
the long term.

About the Red Cross, my whole information was
a discussion among relief workers on TV ranking
organizations in terms of how much money donated
actually gets to poor people. The International
Red Cross came in on top, FWIW.


http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issu ... 99talk.htm

[Dale]

Again, the prevailing wisdom is that one of the best and
surest ways to get the most 'bang for your buck,' in getting
immediate relief to the people most in need right now,
is the International Red Cross.

... but don't tell my Dad. He still grumbles about the Red Cross selling coffee to the troops during WWII, when the Salvation Army provided it for free.

~Judy

That's interesting. My father was a Navy veteran of WWII who served in the Pacific. He was bitter about the Red Cross for similar reasons, although broader. He said the system was corrupt at that time. He used to get mad at me for donating blood at the local Red Cross facility. Of course, he also get mad at me when I bought a Toyota.

[Dale]

Gee. It would be nice if this didn't turn into a my-team-is-better-than-your-team kind of thing. I certainly think a person's money would be used very well by Red Cross.

There's gonna be plenty of work. Do a little research and donate where you want. Everyone on this board is perfectly capable of making an intelligent, independent decision about that.

Dale

[Dale]

Whatever one's stance on these
issues, I find some of these organizations
less than transparent about their agenda.
Code words often substitute for forthright
statements.

I know I'm going to regret getting in to this. Oops. I'm already regretting it.

I've been reading some lately about and excesses of the anti-communist movement (HUAC, blacklisting, etc.) lately and I have to admit that this statement reminds me a bit of that kind of thinking. It could be that a group like Oxfam doesn't say "Hey, we're pro-abortion!" because they don't regard themselves as being about the business of advocating abortion. But this search for "code words" thing scares the crap out of me. The page on the Oxfam website that jim points us to, for example, includes this language:

Abortion has been found to be the most common form of birth control -- it is often the only one that people feel they can afford. People lack sufficient knowledge about, and access to alternative methods of family planning and are extremely unaware of the health risks and complications associated with multiple abortions.

Now, if I was a pro-choice type of a guy, looking for code words, I think I'd be inclined to read "...extremely unaware of the health risks and complications associated with multiple abortions" as......anti-pro-choice code words.

In any case, I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep about my contributions being used to pay for abortions.

It's not that I need to have the last word on this, but I really think we ought to move this particular discussion off this thread. It strikes me as a bit distasteful. I know, I know, but I already said I regret getting in to it.

Remember, I'm the guy that started the political thread.

Dale

[Cayden]

Personally, I think this whole thread started on the wrong foot and maybe it should disappear altogether.

[dapple]

The American Institute of Philanthropy rates/grades charities of all sorts. Here is a link to their list of top-rated charities currently offering relief services to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami:

http://charitywatch.org/hottopics/tsunami_asia.html

The American Red Cross (A+) and Oxfam-America (A-) are both included on the list.

The American Institute of Philanthropy's web site says that it is “helping you give Wisely to charity,” but I’m not sure if any of us are willing to donate Dale.

[KDMARTINKY]

To you all I do apologize for letting my emotions filter onto this board. I currently work with the poor individuals in my State and it breaks my heart to see the living conditions I see folks endure.

I think, no I know that when I saw the initial contributions being pledgeed towasrd this crises it struck me the wrong way.

It has always been my opinion that there is no reason on this earth that anyone should go hungry, without shelter or other basic necessities for survival. When i saw the initial contribution amount I just thought damn the amounts being pledged will be ran through in no time.

I appreciate all that responded to this thread and the information and your thoughts whether you agreed or disagreed with me.

Thanks to you all and have a very happy new year!

God Bless

[mvhplank]

Maybe this note is back on the thread topic...has anyone noticed that Dale has changed the front page on the main Chiff & Fipple web site? It's a dozen or so links associated with earthquake tsunami relief, representing enough different ideologies that anyone on the board can find one he or she can support.

Thanks, Dale!

M

[spittin_in_the_wind]

This is excerpted from a story on CNN's web site:

The giant Internet retailer Amazon.com placed a link to the American Red Cross prominently on its opening page. By midday Friday, more than 100,000 people had donated more than $8 million.

The Internet portal, Yahoo.com, also set up a link to the Red Cross and other charities. In the first 18 hours, according to Yahoo spokeswoman Nicki Dugan, more than 12,000 donors had contributed over $1.2 million to the Red Cross.......

The NonProfit Times, a publication for nonprofit managers, reported that online fund raising for nonprofits brought in about $2 billion in 2003, a 60 percent increase over the previous year. Overall, Americans gave $241 billion to charity in 2003.

By the way, I was glad to see the link posted above rating charities. That type of information is very helpful. My choice is Doctors Without Borders.

Robin

[Wombat]

A disaster of unimaginable proportions happens to countries bordering the Indian ocean. Reading this thread I learn that human misery on a massive scale is not all that this tragedy is about. It's also
1. about America
2. about international league tables for generosity
3. about the iniquities of socialism
4. about abortion
To put it as kindly as I can, I'm having a lot of trouble trying to understand how anybody could regard these matters as appropriate for raising at this time.

Let's turn to a few things that matter. It is important to ask where your money is going when deciding on charities, not because otherwise someone who doesn't share your ideology might be dispensing it but because the amounts that get dispensed vary and the effectiveness of the areas targetted varies. But surely nobody is seriously suggesting that either Oxfam or the Red Cross would be unsuitable are they?

There are really three different waves of aid that will be needed. First, there is the highly visible matter of getting immediate food, drinking water, blankets and medicines to the affected areas. Without medicines more people might die from disease than died from the initial inundation. Second, there is the medium term problem of rebuilding the areas hit. Not only do houses need rebuilding but economies. Finally, there is the long term problem of looking after orphans and the physically and economically crippled. No country has a system in place for coping with the long term social consequences of a disaster like this.

I wonder about the efficacy of warning systems. Had a tsunami hit the coastline where I live, two thirds of Wollongong and large areas of Sydney would have been inundated. People here are not drilled in tsunami evacuation procedures nor, as far as I know, is there any contingency plan in place to get those who can't just drive to safety to higher ground in the event of a tsunami. The logistics of the exercise would overtax, probably swamp, the most sophisticated system and I doubt that any country really has a plan in place that would be even close to adequate.

[jkrazy52]

The American Institute of Philanthropy rates/grades charities of all sorts. Here is a link to their list of top-rated charities currently offering relief services to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami:

http://charitywatch.org/hottopics/tsunami_asia.html

The American Red Cross (A+) and Oxfam-America (A-) are both included on the list.

The American Institute of Philanthropy's web site says that it is “helping you give Wisely to charity,” but I’m not sure if any of us are willing to donate Dale.

What a great link, dapple. That does a good job of sorting out some of charity choices - at least IMO.

Dale, I feel like I've 'arrived' - you quoted me! My dad served in the CBI (China-Burma-India) with the Army Air Force -- and would agree with your father completely. He says that no one who has not been in the area can quite understand the challenge facing all the recovery efforts. Our prayers are with the people there.

~Judy