If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   WaPo: Don't donate to Wyclef's charity. MSM: Donate to American Red Cross. ARC: We seem to have misplaced $175 million   (fwix.com) divider line 118
    More: Asinine, Red Cross, charity, Wyclef, MSM  
•       •       •

15786 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2010 at 10:03 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-15 08:54:25 AM  
Not surprising. The Red Cross is corporation that just so happens to be a non-profit. Charity Rating (new window)
 
2010-02-15 09:05:28 AM  
Fer chrissakes, this hullabaloo happened after 9/11 and Katrina, too. Remember? Bill O'Reilly having to prostrate himself?
 
2010-02-15 09:21:01 AM  
don't they do this after all major spikes in donations? I mean, they could do this all time, but we only hear about it after major disasters.
 
2010-02-15 09:27:35 AM  
I give to my favorite charity all the time.
Me
 
2010-02-15 09:29:58 AM  
I totally believe everything this random blogger insinuates.
 
2010-02-15 10:06:24 AM  
What a crappy site layout.
 
2010-02-15 10:08:14 AM  
Wyclef has a charity called MSN? That must cause confusion.
 
2010-02-15 10:09:00 AM  
Speaking as somebody who was in a place that needed desperate help, of all the groups that take your money and say they do good, the only one I've actually seen doing good every time and all the time, who are still there after the TV cameras go home, is Medicienes Sans Frontiers. And that's where the majority of my charity money goes.
 
2010-02-15 10:10:19 AM  
That is an abortion of a site.
 
2010-02-15 10:11:14 AM  
Johnny the Fox: What a crappy site layout.

you get a big, fat THIS.
 
2010-02-15 10:11:31 AM  
ptomblin: Speaking as somebody who was in a place that needed desperate help, of all the groups that take your money and say they do good, the only one I've actually seen doing good every time and all the time, who are still there after the TV cameras go home, is Medicienes Sans Frontiers. And that's where the majority of my charity money goes.

Is that spanish for doctors without borders?
 
2010-02-15 10:11:58 AM  
ragekage: Fer chrissakes, this hullabaloo happened after 9/11 and Katrina, too. Remember? Bill O'Reilly having to prostrate himself?

I remember the 9/11 fiasco. Was that before or during Ms. Dole taking charge?
 
2010-02-15 10:14:49 AM  
I donated, as I always do, to childfund. They seem to be pretty good about making concrete changes to peoples' lives.
 
2010-02-15 10:14:55 AM  
Good God that site is a PITA. Who approved that shiat?
 
2010-02-15 10:15:11 AM  
Johnny the Fox: What a crappy site layout.

I can't even call it crappy because it starts to load then crashes IE. But some YouTube video is a creditable news source?
 
2010-02-15 10:15:19 AM  
ne2d: I totally believe everything this random blogger insinuates.
 
2010-02-15 10:15:31 AM  
Johnny the Fox: What a crappy site layout.

No kidding. I didn't even read the article after the browser stopped responding. Great job, mr. website guy.
 
2010-02-15 10:15:44 AM  
Where the hell is the article?
 
2010-02-15 10:16:39 AM  
ptomblin: Speaking as somebody who was in a place that needed desperate help, of all the groups that take your money and say they do good, the only one I've actually seen doing good every time and all the time, who are still there after the TV cameras go home, is Medicienes Sans Frontiers. And that's where the majority of my charity money goes.

I give to them. I also give to AmeriCares. Your charity dollar is well-spent with either one, IMO.
 
2010-02-15 10:16:57 AM  
I know it's been mentioned already, but can someone tell me approximately where on that screaming abortion of a webpage there's an actual story? I haven't seen layout that bad since the last time I visited MySpace and had to endure seven videos playing simultaneously while three gigs of animated "thanX 4 teh ADD!" and "show1n sum LUV" gifs loaded, all while Soulja Boy encouraged me to "crank dat" at full volume.
 
2010-02-15 10:18:18 AM  
CrispFlows: Is that spanish for doctors without borders?

It's supposed to be French but "Medicins" is spelt incorrectly. Doctors without Borders is French.
 
2010-02-15 10:18:43 AM  
I'm pretty sure he's failing to draw the distinction between funds already committed to a specific project that has yet to require their actual use yet and funds versus funds allocated for use in Haiti generally, but still in an account waiting to be allocated. The former case would be committing to the construction of a hospital at a specific location, while the latter would be for funds committed for a region while they decide whether to build one hospital or a series of community health centers, but uncommitted to a particular project. Given the lack of existing physical and governmental infrastructure there I'd assume that it's hard to make many large scale commitments there quickly. Giving the hospital construction funds up front to a local health ministry is probably not the safest play, though the bookkeeping would be easy.
 
2010-02-15 10:21:43 AM  
Omnivorous: Johnny the Fox: What a crappy site layout.

I can't even call it crappy because it starts to load then crashes IE. But some YouTube video is a creditable news source?


IE? what doesn't crash IE?
 
2010-02-15 10:23:46 AM  
Umm maybe it takes longer than five minutes to decide how best to spend over 200 million dollars?

/idiot blogger is idiot
 
2010-02-15 10:23:50 AM  
groverpm: It's supposed to be French but "Medicins" is spelt incorrectly. Doctors without Borders is French.

Waitaminnit. I've been donating to "Medicins Sans Pantalon." Did I do something wrong?
 
2010-02-15 10:26:06 AM  
As long as Red Cross "officers" understand that they are subserviently attending to the needs of their volunteers and clients, then we're good.

/missing money would not be good
 
2010-02-15 10:26:06 AM  
ptomblin: Speaking as somebody who was in a place that needed desperate help, of all the groups that take your money and say they do good, the only one I've actually seen doing good every time and all the time, who are still there after the TV cameras go home, is Medicienes Sans Frontiers. And that's where the majority of my charity money goes.

So very much this. MSF (Doctors without Borders) was on the ground, giving care to Haitians before the earthquake happened in one of their free-of-charge trauma center and surgical facility. When the earthquake hit, their facilities were damaged badly, but their Haitian mission has been going strong (despite having flights of medical supplies turned away multiple times).

ARC has mysteriously lost huge amounts of money before. I'd rather trust MSF.
 
2010-02-15 10:26:39 AM  
While I can see where it's worth looking into, it seems to me that the article plainly states the money is allocated, just not targeted to specific projects yet. $80 million spent on immediate emergency needs, with the remainder being used for longer-term projects? Sounds sensible to me. Throwing another $175 million worth of blankets, tents, and rations at Haiti this week will not do much to improve their long term effort to rebuild. Maybe the ARC are greedy creeps, I don't know, but this story doesn't sound like half the big scoop that shiatty website would have you think.
 
2010-02-15 10:29:02 AM  
Thanks subby, that link made my computer cry out in pain.

Abortion of a site is right.
 
2010-02-15 10:30:40 AM  
The ARC doesn't immediately receive money others have pledged.

Therefore, it encounters liquidity issues from time to time.

Pretty simple shiat.
 
2010-02-15 10:36:19 AM  
Ok, to play devils advocate - I am under the impression that the AMR takes donations and distributes them as they see fit. There is no way your donation is marked "for Haiti only" and money may be reserved for other charitable deeds/operation costs/rescue missions.

/oh, and the site made my eyes bleed
 
2010-02-15 10:36:22 AM  
Wow, that is the worst web site I've ever seen. Noscript was showing 30+ sites on the block list. I never even found the story.
 
2010-02-15 10:37:27 AM  
Macthulhu: While I can see where it's worth looking into, it seems to me that the article plainly states the money is allocated, just not targeted to specific projects yet. $80 million spent on immediate emergency needs, with the remainder being used for longer-term projects? Sounds sensible to me. Throwing another $175 million worth of blankets, tents, and rations at Haiti this week will not do much to improve their long term effort to rebuild. Maybe the ARC are greedy creeps, I don't know, but this story doesn't sound like half the big scoop that shiatty website would have you think.

This. Move along, folks.
 
2010-02-15 10:37:52 AM  
Raised $255 million, so far spent or committed $80 million.

That doesn't mean they "misplaced" the rest of.

Submitter and blogger are both retards.
 
2010-02-15 10:41:29 AM  
ragekage: Fer chrissakes, this hullabaloo happened after 9/11 and Katrina, too. Remember? Bill O'Reilly having to prostrate himself?

Great, now I need mind bleach.Oh, prostrate.
Never mind then.
 
2010-02-15 10:45:21 AM  
This is why I give to the Salvation Army. Their bureaucracy is less stultifying.
 
2010-02-15 10:45:45 AM  
What this article doesn't mention is that the Red Cross doesn't receive the donations paid by cell phone text message until the next month when the user's cellphone bill is generated.
 
2010-02-15 10:52:53 AM  
luxdsg: The ARC doesn't immediately receive money others have pledged.

Therefore, it encounters liquidity issues from time to time.

Pretty simple shiat.


Try to be more wrong. This kind of news about the ARC comes out every time and every time the Red Cross patiently explains that to the uninformed proles that they use the donations for a specific tragedy to build up the disaster funds for other purposes and the next disaster, so they should have had lotsa liquid before the first donation.

After 9/11 the Red Cross asked for and took mega-gallons of blood donations...and then quietly mentioned months later that most of the blood was destroyed because it expired...but they wanted people to feel like they were doing something.

This time they were more blatant having reps on TV days after the earthquake saying they hadn't sent a damned thing to Haiti but were waiting to see what was needed and were planning the response.

I sent my money to Catholic Relief, who was in Haiti and responding already at minute one, and I'll send more to Doctors Without Borders.
 
2010-02-15 10:52:56 AM  
FTFA - According to the American Red Cross' own one month report, it has raised $255 million for the Haitian Relief effort.

That's as much money as was raised to finance the upgrade construction of the Miami Dolphins' stadium for Super Bowl XLIV.


Um, was this comparison supposed to make me feel like $255 million was a lot or not very much? Because when I think we've donated one stadium upgrade's worth of money to rebuild an entire country it doesn't sound like very much anymore.
 
2010-02-15 10:56:03 AM  
netringer: After 9/11 the Red Cross asked for and took mega-gallons of blood donations...and then quietly mentioned months later that most of the blood was destroyed because it expired...but they wanted people to feel like they were doing something.

I don't really see the issue here. From what I've heard, the red cross historically runs on low levels of blood stocks and donations. So to put it in the worst possible light, TRC took advantage of 9/11 in order to... continue to save patient lives.
 
2010-02-15 11:00:21 AM  
Does the ARC misplace blood donations and give them to vampires instead?
 
2010-02-15 11:07:40 AM  
lennavan: FTFA - According to the American Red Cross' own one month report, it has raised $255 million for the Haitian Relief effort.

That's as much money as was raised to finance the upgrade construction of the Miami Dolphins' stadium for Super Bowl XLIV.

Um, was this comparison supposed to make me feel like $255 million was a lot or not very much? Because when I think we've donated one stadium upgrade's worth of money to rebuild an entire country it doesn't sound like very much anymore.


Ah, but you see, the stadium upgrade would only cost about $500 USD in Haiti, so s'all good.
 
2010-02-15 11:08:10 AM  
Why was this piece of shiat website with a bullshiat headline approved? No one "misplaced" $175 million. The blogger is whining because he says of the $255 mil for Haiti donated to the Red Cross, they've only spent or allocated $80 million.

If that's true, so what? Quite probably they're still working to allocate additional funds. One of the biggest problems in Haiti is the near total lack of infrastructure to support these big relief efforts. I'm sure the Red Cross themselves have some limitations too as far as quick response goes, but my understanding is that the lack of Haitian infrastructure is what's really slowed down relief efforts. A relief organization can't just go effectively spend $255 million in Haiti tomorrow. It's going to take time.

I for one am glad they will apparently have donation money remaining to assist Haiti beyond just a few weeks after the quake. As the world's attention has turned to other things, the situation is Haiti is still dire.
 
2010-02-15 11:08:46 AM  
Anyone else find it ironic that this guy didn't give the Red Cross a chance to respond before he "reported" this?
 
2010-02-15 11:11:29 AM  
Got this link from someone here, and it seems to be a pretty good source for figuring out which charities are worthy:

CHARITY NAVIGATOR (new window)
 
2010-02-15 11:12:28 AM  
I believe that those who've posted the following idea already are correct: The Red Cross spends money that it already has on a disaster when it occurs, and then uses the money it collects following a disaster to pay for the relief for the next one. This is a simplification, but pretty much explains it. Like Doctors Without Borders, as they're best known in the States, the Red Cross goes a lot of places that others don't go. I think trust placed in the IRC is well-placed trust.
 
2010-02-15 11:17:47 AM  
You can tell who in this thread tried to RTFA and who is responding based on the headline. The former is talking about the website, which is the real story here, while the latter is addressing the same tired Red Cross debates that we get a few times a year on Fark.
 
2010-02-15 11:19:24 AM  
Retarded people continue to be retarded.

I've donated to the red cross about 3 or 4 times in the past few years after major disasters. They make it very clear that the money you donate is not going directly to the disaster. It goes into their general relief fund that is constantly being used around the world for unseen disasters that are usually just as bad. When there are big disasters a lot of the money does go to that incident, but Haiti having an earthquake doesn't mean they shut down relief operations around the world.

As others have said. That's a lot of money, and I am glad they are not rushing to spend it. They need to decide on how to get the most out of that money and budget it for the long haul. It's not like they can spend all the money, wave a magic wand and fix haiti in one month. It's going to take years.

The only thing the red cross is guilty of is taking advantage of media attention on big disasters to help them provide relief for some of the smaller disasters that we hear nothing about.
 
2010-02-15 11:28:40 AM  
Johnny the Fox: What a crappy site layout.

This.
 
2010-02-15 11:30:40 AM  
plumbicon: This is why I give to the Salvation Army. Their bureaucracy is less stultifying.

Really? A history of discrimination and hiding behind religious exemptions? 17% or more administrative overhead?
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report