Don’t Donate to Katrina, 911, Hurricanes, Famines, or anything else…
But FEMA and the affected states are reimbursing the Red Cross under preexisting contracts for emergency shelter and other disaster services. The existence of these contracts is no secret to anyone but the American public. The Red Cross carefully says it functions only by the grace of the American people — but “people” includes government, national and local. What we’ve now come to expect from a major disaster is a Red Cross media blitz.
When New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer asked for documentation of 9/11 expenditures, the Red Cross’ response was that it is federally chartered and not answerable to state government regulators. The clamor rose, however, when the media began dissecting Red Cross activities in the 9/11 aftermath. This resulted in the resignation of the organization’s president and chief executive, Dr. Bernadine Healy…
The Red Cross expects to raise more than $2 billion before Hurricane Katrina-related giving subsides. If it takes care of 300,000 people, that’s $7,000 per victim. I doubt each victim under Red Cross care will see more than a doughnut, an interview with a social worker and a short-term voucher for a cheap motel, with a few miscellaneous items such as clothes and cooking pots thrown in.
Emphasis mine. Facts? Ask them yourself where the money goes.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 27th, 2005 at 7:38 pm and is tagged with bernadine healy, eliot spitzer, cooking pots, government regulators, media blitz, cross response, major disaster, disaster services, executive dr, emergency shelter, famines, cross media, cheap motel, doughnut, fema, red cross, clamor, social worker, hurricanes, resignation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback.
3 Responses to 'Don’t Donate to Katrina, 911, Hurricanes, Famines, or anything else…'
Leave a Reply
Fresh, related resources:
- Don’t Donate to Katrina, 911, Hurricanes, Famines, or anything else…
The Red Cross expects to raise more than $2 billion before Hurricane Katrina-related giving subsides. If it takes care of 300000 people, that’s $7000 per victim. I doubt each victim under Red Cross care will see more than a doughnut, ...
on September 27th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Well sure, don’t donate to the Red Cross if you don’t want to, but that doesn’t meant here aren’t worthwhile ways to give. Have you seen this blog:
gracedavis.typepad.com/katrinablog/
A woman with feet on the street n the South is going form shelter to shelter finding out what they need and who’s there and whether they’re receiving direct deliveries. She calls a woman in Santa Cruz on her cell and updates her. The Santa Cruz woman keeps the blog updated. You can, in this way, send supplies directly to shelters and families in need.
I think Craig’s List also has more community-based resources.
I wouldn’t abandon the idea of helping. I would seek alternate ways to help that you feel comfortable with.
on September 27th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
See, the problem is that there are two reasonable ways to help, if you so decide (which is another big argument):
+ In person, with your own skills and brute labour / resources, etc, working hands on. That’s not feasible if you live nowhere near the disaster site, or can’t get away.
+ Through some monetary contribution. But, then how can you trust that your money is being used well (efficiently, with some impact, not for the benefit of the org, but of the people in need, not being stolen, etc).
It’s hard to give for situations like this. I think it’s also worth mentioning that the news of “latest disaster x” should not affect your decision to make a donation. Either you are the person who donates some money to charity for disaster relief, or you’re not. Simply hearing about disaster x and giving money is direct application of the pathetic fallacy.
on September 28th, 2005 at 9:52 am
I vaguely remember a similar issue with the Red Cross when an earthquake hit San Francisco. The Red Cross put out TV advertisements saying they were accepting donations to give to those affected in the city. The mayor went to the Red Cross and asked when they were going to distribute the funds. He was told the money they (the Red Cross) had collected was going to be distributed to fund international Red Cross operations. I could be wrong about some of the details, but the Red Cross got a lot of money using deceptive tactics.