Japan's National Disaster

[Spen]

If so then show me.

 

Some people started to slam the Red Cross when it was reported that a percentage of the money donated during 9/11 was kept by the Red Cross for administrative costs. This covers many things including travel expenses for volunteers.

 

According to several sites and audits it looks like about 90% goes directly to programs like Haiti and Japan relief. Administrative costs are between 4 and 6% and fundraising costs are around 4%.

 

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/human-services/american-red-cross-in-washington-dc-679

 

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277

 

So about 90% goes directly to relief programs. Doctors Without Borders (a fine charity too IMO) declares 14% in administrative and fund raising costs

(http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/info.cfm). If that is too little I suggest you donate elsewhere. It costs money to run these groups and pay for shipping and travel. I am also OK with some of them paying good salaries for good talent. Organizing some of these efforts has got to be a logistical nightmare and they need good people to do it. The Red Cross lists no salaries on its payroll in the millions.

 

While it may not be a perfect charity, and thankfully I have never been on the receiving end of any aid from them, I have heard enough and seen enough to think they do a lot of good work. Hell, one of the ExtremeRavens posters house burned down one night and he said the Red Cross was there very quickly to provide food and shelter for them. In that thread as he mentioned how they helped him some chimed in with 'oh the Red Cross sucks' comments which I thought was a pretty poor time and place for those comments.

 

Sorry for the rant, I am sure someone will find numbers to argue mine or just provide anecdotal evidence as to how bad the Red Cross is anyway.

[BengalBilly]

Some people started to slam the Red Cross when it was reported that a percentage of the money donated during 9/11 was kept by the Red Cross for administrative costs. This covers many things including travel expenses for volunteers.

 

According to several sites and audits it looks like about 90% goes directly to programs like Haiti and Japan relief. Administrative costs are between 4 and 6% and fundraising costs are around 4%.

Those numbers appear reasonable for any organization. Especially one willing to show up when disaster strikes.

[cravnravn]

Red Cross workers are in the Teamsters, so you know they aren't showing you the real numbers

[papasmurfbell]

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/03/13/should-you-donate-to-the-red-cross/

I’m also open to the possibility that the op-ed above is wrong, or that there are credible responses to or justifications of the points it raises. But I’d like to see those responses. It’s hard to fathom why the Red Cross would have 70 percent of Haiti donations still sitting in the bank a year later, while the country battles preventable disease outbreaks caused by poor sanitation.

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-06/us/rec.charity.hearing_1_liberty-fund-red-cross-relief-agency?_s=PM:US

The Red Cross has raised more than $564 million for the Liberty Fund, which was set up in response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

 

While the agency states on its Web site that it is spending more than any other relief agency responding to the terrorist attacks, it has distributed only $154 million.

 

http://richgirllowlife.blogspot.com/2011/03/red-cross-stole-millions-of-dollars.html

In 1989, the Red Cross raised $50 million for the victims of the San Francisco earthquake. But it’s estimated that only $10 million of it was turned over to the actual victims.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/01/15/dont-give-money-to-haiti/

The last time there was a disaster on this scale was the Asian tsunami, five years ago. And for all its best efforts, the Red Cross has still only spent 83% of its $3.21 billion tsunami budget — which means that it has over half a billion dollars left to spend. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s money which could be spent in Haiti, if it weren’t for the fact that it was earmarked.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trSfACmrc_E&feature=player_embedded

[Spen]

If they collect unrestricted donations (money may be used for other relief efforts in addition to the one you may be donating for) or restricted (all money raised for a certain event will be used for that event); either way they get slammed for it. Now it seems like most people want the money to be unrestricted. Ten years ago when some people donated money for 9/11 relief efforts and found it might go to famine relief in other parts of the world some people were angry. That caused the situation with the Tsunami relief fund.

 

From the last link

But if a charity is worth supporting, then it’s worth supporting with unrestricted funds.

 

I wholeheartedly agree, thats why I never got why so many people were upset with the Red Cross years ago. And BTW that same authors latest column suggests donations to the Red Cross.

 

I am not saying the Red Cross is perfect and I am sure there is waste in some of their programs but from the research I have done now and in the last 10 years makes believe it is a good place to donate. I'll take the various audits I have read and the A- rating given to it by the non profit charity watchdog group American Institute of Philanthropy over editorials and blogs.

[papasmurfbell]

OK. I expect them put the money where they say it was needed when collected. I am not into people having big slush funds to do with as they see fit.

[Spen]

OK. I expect them put the money where they say it was needed when collected. I am not into people having big slush funds to do with as they see fit.

 

OK then your stance is opposite most of the links you provided. Fair enough. Doctors Without Borders also collects unrestricted donations so your donation may not go to the relief effort you donated it for so you may want to scratch them off your donation list if you are against that.

 

As for how much is actually going to be needed for each disaster at the beginning is unknown as is the amount that will be donated at that time too, so I am OK with the possibility of my donation going to help someone other than the victims of a specific event.

[Spen]

I am no huge fan of Verizon (though better than Comcast IMO) but I think one thing they are doing is nice. Fios customers can watch a Japanese station on 1770 ( I think) through 4-10 for free. Which is nice if you have relatives there and want more news. Also Fios customers can call Japan for free until 4-10.

 

We were watching Good Morning Japan last night and saw some scary stuff. Some reporter wrapped newspaper around her torso, covered it with plastic wrap and taped it up. It looked like they were talking about radiation so it looked like they were telling people what to do if they had to go out.

[dc.]

You do realize the second (CNN) article you posted, the 564m collected vs. 154m distributed was from November 2001, just two months after the tragedy. Give me updated numbers. If they just threw money everywhere, we'd be hearing reports about them sending it the wrong way.

 

There are watchdogs that oversee non-profits over issues just like this. I have never seen the Red Cross on one of their lists.

[dc.]

BTW - on a separate note, this shouldn't be about the Red Cross. My point was more that you can support businesses and organizations not interested in for-profit goals. That was all. Red Cross isn't the type of organization I was talking about.

[deeshopper]

I am no huge fan of Verizon (though better than Comcast IMO) but I think one thing they are doing is nice. Fios customers can watch a Japanese station on 1770 ( I think) through 4-10 for free. Which is nice if you have relatives there and want more news. Also Fios customers can call Japan for free until 4-10.

 

We were watching Good Morning Japan last night and saw some scary stuff. Some reporter wrapped newspaper around her torso, covered it with plastic wrap and taped it up. It looked like they were talking about radiation so it looked like they were telling people what to do if they had to go out.

 

I didn't know that. That is great. I have a couple of friends in Japan right now. Are you sure about the free calls? Where did you learn this 'cause I never got anything from Verizon about it. Watching the Japanese news right now.

[vmax]

yea...Go Red Cross!...now back on topic... .... those reactors are cooked...done...they won't tell the truth. The workers probably have lethal doses by now. They are rotating 180 peole there and they know they are sacrificing their lives...they volunteered. That is heavy.

 

If the death toll is around 10,000 like they project, then that would be miraculous from the devastaion I've seen on tv.

 

I saw mega disasters on tv last night and something about the Cascadia earthquake that will happen one day off California and Canada. Same senario as Japan...the fault is so close to the coast that they would not be able to warn the population in time. Maga quake, tsunami like Japans...maybe bigger..

 

Is it me or is there a big increase in Natural Disasters in the last 10 -15 years.

It feels like it's increasing exponentially.

[papasmurfbell]

You do realize the second (CNN) article you posted, the 564m collected vs. 154m distributed was from November 2001, just two months after the tragedy. Give me updated numbers. If they just threw money everywhere, we'd be hearing reports about them sending it the wrong way.

 

There are watchdogs that oversee non-profits over issues just like this. I have never seen the Red Cross on one of their lists.

 

I can't find updated numbers. I do recall sometime later Bill O'Rielly railing about the money collected vs what was distributed. It has been 8-9 yrs since then so I cannot recall particulars.

 

yea...Go Red Cross!...now back on topic... .... those reactors are cooked...done...they won't tell the truth. The workers probably have lethal doses by now. They are rotating 180 peole there and they know they are sacrificing their lives...they volunteered. That is heavy.

 

If the death toll is around 10,000 like they project, then that would be miraculous from the devastaion I've seen on tv.

 

I saw mega disasters on tv last night and something about the Cascadia earthquake that will happen one day off California and Canada. Same senario as Japan...the fault is so close to the coast that they would not be able to warn the population in time. Maga quake, tsunami like Japans...maybe bigger..

 

Is it me or is there a big increase in Natural Disasters in the last 10 -15 years.

It feels like it's increasing exponentially.

 

I watched a video last night where the expert said that everyone fighting the fires would more than likely die from radiation. He said that they more than likely knew it was a death sentence walking in to fight the fires.

[dc.]

Well, listening to Bill O'Reilly is your first problem. ;)

 

Meanwhile, I have found that the stats on the Haiti money distribution seems to be the same... and the Tsunami... that most of these complaints come 2-3 months after the disaster, which in the long run is still relatively close. By 2007, the Red Cross had (apparently) used more than 83% of the billions in Tsunami funds.

 

In Haiti, they have justified saying that while some amount of the money is being used (or was) for 'immediate relief' a much larger percentage was going to be used for long-term prevention and relief.

 

I'm no expert. I just know that every year I read articles about the worst offenders in non-profits, those where 15, 20, even 25% of funds are used as 'administrative.' The Red Cross never makes those lists from legitimate (not anecdotal) journalism.

[papasmurfbell]

I also point to the video. What did the money go to in Haiti? Those are makeshift tents made of tarps at best. The only real tent seen in it was of the Red Cross tent that was abandoned. So what was purchased with that money?

[deeshopper]

I also point to the video. What did the money go to in Haiti? Those are makeshift tents made of tarps at best. The only real tent seen in it was of the Red Cross tent that was abandoned. So what was purchased with that money?

 

In Haiti, they have justified saying that while some amount of the money is being used (or was) for 'immediate relief' a much larger percentage was going to be used for long-term prevention and relief.

 

I guess they can just build the new houses on top of the rubble.

[Spen]

I didn't know that. That is great. I have a couple of friends in Japan right now. Are you sure about the free calls? Where did you learn this 'cause I never got anything from Verizon about it. Watching the Japanese news right now.

 

Yes, I just checked the messages again. If you have Fios open the menu and go to 'messages'. You should see the two messages they sent. One about the Japan TV, one about the free calls.

[deeshopper]

Yes, I just checked the messages again. If you have Fios open the menu and go to 'messages'. You should see the two messages they sent. One about the Japan TV, one about the free calls.

 

Yeah I got it. Very cool. Good to know. I'm hoping to reach my friend.

[cravnravn]

I didn't know that. That is great. I have a couple of friends in Japan right now. Are you sure about the free calls? Where did you learn this 'cause I never got anything from Verizon about it. Watching the Japanese news right now.

 

 

Dee, you dont Skype with your friends?? I know thats free

[cravnravn]

I also point to the video. What did the money go to in Haiti? Those are makeshift tents made of tarps at best. The only real tent seen in it was of the Red Cross tent that was abandoned. So what was purchased with that money?

 

 

10 cents of every dollar that was donated to Haiti was put right into the Gov'ts greedy little fingers. Its funny I didnt hear Venezualas name as a contributor helping Haiti, yet here we a are a country, whos embassy was exiled from Haiti are the first ones on the seen. Haiti needs to be taught more than they need financial aid, Yes they needed aid after the quake hit..

 

But they should have been schooled years and years ago that if you take a tree you replant a tree. Haitis mudslides could have been well avoided, Haiti is very mountainous or hilly area, and centuries of taking trees from the top on down and not replacing them with seedlings? now thats just setting them up for a bigger disaster than the quake caused.

[cravnravn]

Is it me or is there a big increase in Natural Disasters in the last 10 -15 years.

It feels like it's increasing exponentially

 

You're right on with that observation.

 

Drilling on a daily basis into the sea floor and removing millions of barrels of oil has got to weaken the crust of the plates??

 

How about the weather over the past 10 years, hell just the past two..I dont know about you but this has been a costly winter for us, back in early February there was a segment on the tube for the mid atlantic and was to the effect of 2010/2011 winter vs 2009/2010 winter, yes we a hell of alot more snow in 2009/2010 but the total hours spent from Dec 2009 thru Feb 2010 vs Dec 2010 thru Feb 2011 was astonishing, they had it at 350 hours of temps 32 or less vs this seasons 550+ hours of 32 or less..And I recall Thanksgiving time it was called..I was in Ft Myers for a week and it was so cold on the beach like 35 degrees, that we would get in the water because the water temps were in the mid 70's.

 

I think Mother Nature is up there firing warning shots at us, wether we heed her warning is another thing.

[dc.]

Crav - not sure I totally understand the first message on Haiti. Though, I understand part of it. I think it's unfair to blame the people, however. They've been through murderous and violent dictators, collapsed governments, etc. And frequently because for a long time no one from the outside world got involved.

 

As for the second post about the frequency of natural disasters... it's just you guys. Actually, it feels like more, but most scientists refute that it is happening at all. And they have the data to back it up. The FEELING of greater frequency comes from:

a. 24/7 news outlets and the internet - you can now cover these events instantly, whereas before you'd hear notes of them days later

b. growing human population - overpopulation in some areas, leading to more casualties/more people being affected

c. just plain bad luck - in terms of recent earthquakes and powerful storms hitting populated areas

 

But CNN had a photo-timeline of the world's deadliest disasters the other day... Haiti and the Tsunami cracked the top 10, but they were still low, I think. Chinese, Asian and South American floods and mudslides in past decades have killed hundreds of thousands... we just never hear about them.

[cravnravn]

DC, Im not blaming the people, Im blaming the gov't, they should be educated enough to know if you take and not replentish, you are going to have a catestrophy, Ive decended over Haiti, its barren on the mountain tops and hill sides and with Haiti in the middle of hurricane alley spells disaster.

 

Haiti is nothing more than a 3rd world country, but their leaders are well taken care of...

[dc.]

I'm in total agreement with that, but your last sentence says it all... or rather, is the catch...

 

The leaders have not been on the up-and-up, they've been corrupt if not legitimate dictators at various times. The statement "they should have been schooled" is worthless. If "they" is the government, you're talking about corrupt folks who could care less - they are schooled, they are simply not acting. If "they" is the people, you're talking about people who don't know that and wouldn't care anyway because they are simply trying to survive under a system that offers no help.

 

The real answer is WE should have started finding ways to help them preserve and replenish these resources long ago. Certainly "they" should have done something, but... see above. Expecting a greedy, self-interested government to act in a way you see as "right" is... silly.

[vmax]

Expecting a greedy, self-interested government to act in a way you see as "right" is... silly.

 

Hey...don't talk about our goverment like that!