The Shrine

NYT: <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/natio ... epage>Much of Gulf Coast Is Crippled; Toll Rises</a>

The article Sine posted was dead-on in terms of severity. I'm amazed this quote is at the end of the article:

Peter Teahen, the national spokesman for the American Red Cross, said: "We are looking now at a disaster above any magnitude that we've seen in the United States. We've been saying that the response is going to be the largest Red Cross response in the history of the organization."

I'm not sure which scenario from the WP article Sine posted is happening, but it's enough to be the worst natural disaster the US has ever experienced.

I'd better hit the bank up tomorrow and deposit my paycheck so i can donate to the Red Cross...

Natural disaster, yes, but I think 9/11 and Pearl Harbor had higher death tolls. It's a damn shame that an entire major city pretty much falls into the sea. I'll need to change my honeymoon plans now...

Mental wrote:I'd better hit the bank up tomorrow and deposit my paycheck so i can donate to the Red Cross...

Yeah, donating would be better. I'd imagine that the same situation with them on 9/11 will happen when they say that they actually have enough blood.

You better fill up your gas tank ASAP, too.

I'm not worrying about it, because gas will be up to $7-10/gallon in a few years anyway.

I've been looking at some of the pictures and video and it's amazing what a Category 4 hurricane can do to an area below sea level.

I had no idea this was going to turn out so badly, until some high up guy at the national weather service described it as a worst case scenario several hours before landfall.

Mental wrote:I'd better hit the bank up tomorrow and deposit my paycheck so i can donate to the Red Cross...

*sigh*

I'm not trying to sounds like a bad person here, but i must make it clear that donating money to a charity, even the Red Cross, is going to get very little to the victims.

In American not-for-profit tax returns, you must categorize your expenses as either Program (your purpose), Fundraising (advertising), or Management and General (other). Unfortunately, a LOT of expenses can legally be called "Program Expenses". Thus, when you ask the person on the phone who asks for a donation from you, "How much of my dollar goes towards needy people?" they can legally respond with a number like 80-90%, or whatever the total "Program Expenses" is divided by the total expenses. With that high a % you are satisfied that most of your money will help and you donate.

In the 2004 tax return of the American Red Cross, 90% of all expenses are categorized as program expenses. Logically, you would think that 90% of your dollar goes towards the cause, but that isnt really the case. When you look at the breakdown of the $2,891,973,863 that the ARC calls "Program Expenses" you see enourmous numbers like :

$91,000,000 occupancy (rent)
$48,000,000 shipping and postage
$380,000,000 other contractual services (whatever the fuck that means)
$1,120,483,525 salaries and wages
$175,000,000 other employee benefits

and the things that matter?...

$118,000,000 specific assitance to individuals
$6,000,000 other assistance
$517,000,000 supplies

When i used to be an auditor for not-for-profits, our audit fees would be categorized as "Program" since we were auditing the numbers that mostly went to "Program". That kind of shit shows how gray the area is between what can be called "Program" and what should be called "Management and General". Rest assured that if something is on that gray line it will be pushed toards "Program" in a heartbeat. Wouldnt you think things like occupancy (rent) should be M&G? "Noooo, our office helps support the program, so its a "Program Expense"."

Now, i know the ARC needs employees, and many of those emplyees are EMT's and such who help the people, but i refuse to believe that $1,120,000,000 of the total $1,250,000,000 salary expense is salaries of people who are DIRECTLY supporting the program.

Page 2 of this PDF shows the Functional Expense Statement of the 2004 Tax Return.
http://www.redcross.org/pubs/car04/TxFm990.PDF

What can you do? Find places that will accept donations of blankets, clothing, or canned food, etc. It is impossible for a charity to skimp or miscatagorize a physical donation. You can easily rest assured that 100% of your donation will be helping the needy people with items like this.

Either that, or put a restriction on your donation. If you are donating a large sum, you are allowed to say "I want this to go toward food to the people who lost their homes." You can get as specific as you like and they charity must honor it, if they are honest. Usually there is a threshold on restricted donations, so they can tell you, "Sir, you are not donating enough to place a restriction on this donation." if you arent donating enough. Since 95% of all cash donation are usually unrestricted, that is the pot they will skimp from, it is too tempting for them not to.

Do everyone a favor and donate physical goods. Obviously, if all else fails, donate money, but i think giving a bum $100 would go farther than $1,000 would go in the hands of the Red Cross.

Donations of food and water are going to be the big ones here.

Advising on effective ways to donate to charity is an important thing. People without accounting degrees don't know these things, and in the end, if one is going to help, efficiency is incredibly paramount.

Do you know any organizations that are accepting water donations?

Tortolia wrote:Donations of food and water are going to be the big ones here.

and batteries.

Flip wrote:I'm not trying to sounds like a bad person here, but i must make it clear that donating money to a charity, even the Red Cross, is going to get very little to the victims.

The American Red Cross is a large organization. We need large organizations in order to handle disasters of this magnitude. Unfortunately, large organizations also have large overhead. So even if your money is not going directly to the victimes, your money is used to keep such a large organization going. If they can't remain a large organization, then they will not be equipped to handle large disasters.

Frankly, donating money to the American Red Cross probably <i>is</i> more cost effective than donating any items directly. If I donate, say, blankets, I haven't done anything to help with the organization, shipment and distribution of those blankets (which will likely be done by an organization like the Red Cross, if not them). It might be more effecient to donate the money directly to an organization, and let them handle getting the necessary items.

Kupek wrote:

Flip wrote:I'm not trying to sounds like a bad person here, but i must make it clear that donating money to a charity, even the Red Cross, is going to get very little to the victims.

The American Red Cross is a large organization. We need large organizations in order to handle disasters of this magnitude. Unfortunately, large organizations also have large overhead. So even if your money is not going directly to the victimes, your money is used to keep such a large organization going. If they can't remain a large organization, then they will not be equipped to handle large disasters.

Frankly, donating money to the American Red Cross probably <i>is</i> more cost effective than donating any items directly. If I donate, say, blankets, I haven't done anything to help with the organization, shipment and distribution of those blankets (which will likely be done by an organization like the Red Cross, if not them). It might be more effecient to donate the money directly to an organization, and let them handle getting the necessary items.

I am not sure how the American Red Cross works, but I would suspect that all additional fees are government subsidized. I believe that the donator can specify exactly where the donation is to head.

Kupek wrote:

Flip wrote:I'm not trying to sounds like a bad person here, but i must make it clear that donating money to a charity, even the Red Cross, is going to get very little to the victims.

The American Red Cross is a large organization. We need large organizations in order to handle disasters of this magnitude. Unfortunately, large organizations also have large overhead. So even if your money is not going directly to the victimes, your money is used to keep such a large organization going. If they can't remain a large organization, then they will not be equipped to handle large disasters.

Frankly, donating money to the American Red Cross probably <i>is</i> more cost effective than donating any items directly. If I donate, say, blankets, I haven't done anything to help with the organization, shipment and distribution of those blankets (which will likely be done by an organization like the Red Cross, if not them). It might be more effecient to donate the money directly to an organization, and let them handle getting the necessary items.

If i wanted to support the ARC i would give THEM a donation during a time where there isnt such a crisis. I would have no problem with that. But, when a disaster like this occurs, i would prefer 100% of my donation to help the crisis, which an item donation accomplishes.

If the point of your donation is to support the ARC and its many activities then thats fine, they do good things, but if your goal is to truly support the hurricane victims, then cash just wont do that much is all i'm saying.

Well, I'd joke about sobbing and then giving my money to the homeless bums at my park in the light of a lack of any agreement on how to effectively donate in this distaster, but that really wouldn't be cool.

My sincere guess is that unless accounting or tax concerns eat up part of a donation, just donating to an organization generally is probably fine. It's not like the Red Cross is out to make money, or has any history of profiteering that I've ever heard of (though I suppose it could, I've never really looked.) I mean, I have a hard time believing donations given two days into one of the most human-catastrophic natural disasters in history are going to go to gangbanger relief in South Central L.A. And if it's going to management... Until I hear of a scandal involving Red Cross corporate management, I'd rather send them the most fluid funds possible, because again, I'm guessing on this, but if you find out you overestimated water and underestimated bandages as far as needs go, it's a lot easier to buy the bandages from someone if the funds aren't hobbled with some sort of restriction.

The Red Cross website is swamped and I can't seem to get on anyway, so I'll have to check later. I'm guessing that's a good sign as far as donation potential goes, though.

This is sad:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/31/k ... index.html

I wish there was something I could do other than donating.

If I had the means, I would go down there and see what I could do to help.

Mental wrote:Advising on effective ways to donate to charity is an important thing. People without accounting degrees don't know these things, and in the end, if one is going to help, efficiency is incredibly paramount.

Do you know any organizations that are accepting water donations?

So many of them are such a big scam. Like you guys are saying, stick with donating food and water. They don't like it since they can't keep the money themeselves and it actually costs them money to move it (their excuse is that they can buy it cheaper in bulk, and that's true somewhat), but you can at least be certain that the money is actually going to the actual products to directly help the victims rather than paying 80% to admin costs.

Zeus wrote:So many of them are such a big scam. Like you guys are saying, stick with donating food and water. They don't like it since they can't keep the money themeselves and it actually costs them money to move it (their excuse is that they can buy it cheaper in bulk, and that's true somewhat), but you can at least be certain that the money is actually going to the actual products to directly help the victims rather than paying 80% to admin costs.

I think that organizations like the Red Cross are safe.

My earlier point was that costs due to maintaining infrastructure are necessary. People have a misguided psychological need to feel that their donation is going from their hands to the victim's hands. If your money pays for gas, then you're helping the victims. If your money helps pay the salary of an employee who helps coordinate the relief effort, then you're helping the victims. If your money helps pay the lease of the building where all of the people coordinating the effort work, then you're helping the victims. An effort this large requires a substantial amount of organization and infrastructure, which is unfortunately expensive. Without the necessary organization and infrastructure, food and water won't make a difference.

This is pretty much inconvievable to me, an entire city's infrastructure wiped out. It's horrifying, and I know it's true.
How does NO recover from this? Can it?

Forget Pearl Harbour and 9/11, they were terrible events as well but they won't have the lasting impact that Katrina will have on New Orleans.

Instead of buying buying any videogames this September, I took the money I likely would have and donated it to the Red Cross. Is all of it going to the victims? No, but it's helping an organization that is doing all that it can there. Cost of shipping money, very small. Cost of shipping food & water donations, insanely high. My $ donation is far more efficient.

Eric, I'm glad your immediate friends & family are safe. I trust that everything will work out for them.

A co-worker's comment reminded me that I've got a shitload of old clothes stashed away in my attic.

So, I just went through, sorted them out, and I've got two lawn bags and a small box full of jeans, t-shirts, socks, and some other miscellaneous stuff.

In the long run, it ain't much, but it'd do some people a whole lot more good than they're doing me.

I find it funny that people are a buzz about donating and feeling sorry about a thousand dead people in New Orleans, but millions dying in a tsunami is just business as usual. Not to say that I'm exempt, but it's just something I notice.

SineSwiper wrote:I find it funny that people are a buzz about donating and feeling sorry about a thousand dead people in New Orleans, but millions dying in a tsunami is just business as usual. Not to say that I'm exempt, but it's just something I notice.

I have some evil thoughts on the subject, too. Obviously noone has a choice on where they are born, but they defenitely had a choice to continue living there and to stay when the mayor tells you to evacuate. Its a fucking bowl below sea level that has hurricanes!!!! The levees were built to wistand category 3 'canes and this was a 5!!!! Can you pick a more dangerous spot? Maybe the San Andreas fault, but thats a disaster waiting to happen, too.

(whistles embarassedly, checks housing listings in Vancouver)

SineSwiper wrote:I find it funny that people are a buzz about donating and feeling sorry about a thousand dead people in New Orleans, but millions dying in a tsunami is just business as usual. Not to say that I'm exempt, but it's just something I notice.

People didn't go about business as usual. I remember plenty of coverage of the tsunami and talk of donations. I think Katrina has caused more talk in the US press, but since it's in our own country, I think there's more of a burden on us in particular to help out.

Flip wrote:I have some evil thoughts on the subject, too. Obviously noone has a choice on where they are born, but they defenitely had a choice to continue living there and to stay when the mayor tells you to evacuate. Its a fucking bowl below sea level that has hurricanes!!!! The levees were built to wistand category 3 'canes and this was a 5!!!! Can you pick a more dangerous spot? Maybe the San Andreas fault, but thats a disaster waiting to happen, too.

We get emotionaly attached to our homes. It's not a logical choice, but I certainly understand why people live in an area despite the risks.

Kupek wrote:

Zeus wrote:So many of them are such a big scam. Like you guys are saying, stick with donating food and water. They don't like it since they can't keep the money themeselves and it actually costs them money to move it (their excuse is that they can buy it cheaper in bulk, and that's true somewhat), but you can at least be certain that the money is actually going to the actual products to directly help the victims rather than paying 80% to admin costs.

I think that organizations like the Red Cross are safe.

My earlier point was that costs due to maintaining infrastructure are necessary. People have a misguided psychological need to feel that their donation is going from their hands to the victim's hands. If your money pays for gas, then you're helping the victims. If your money helps pay the salary of an employee who helps coordinate the relief effort, then you're helping the victims. If your money helps pay the lease of the building where all of the people coordinating the effort work, then you're helping the victims. An effort this large requires a substantial amount of organization and infrastructure, which is unfortunately expensive. Without the necessary organization and infrastructure, food and water won't make a difference.

Agreed, but what I don't like my money paying for is excessive salaries. Working for a company like the Red Cross shouldn't be a full-time job with a full-time, market-equivalent salary. It should be you donate your time or you work for a far reduced rate as a way of giving to the charity. That's what I don't like.

I konw the whole argument that they have to pay these people in order to have the overall better good since they have the right people, but how can an organization who employs people looking out for their best interest look out for the best interest of others in a non-profit manner? After all, isn't a company the sum of its employees? I don't believe that argument one bit.

Zeus wrote:Agreed, but what I don't like my money paying for is excessive salaries. Working for a company like the Red Cross shouldn't be a full-time job with a full-time, market-equivalent salary. It should be you donate your time or you work for a far reduced rate as a way of giving to the charity. That's what I don't like.

Then the Red Cross, or other organizations, would be much less capable of responding to disasters. An organization of completely part-time employees will not be able to respond as quickly and effeciently. Some of the people in the Red Cross have a full time job, just like some public servants (people in government, including police, fire fighters and military).

Zeus wrote:I konw the whole argument that they have to pay these people in order to have the overall better good since they have the right people, but how can an organization who employs people looking out for their best interest look out for the best interest of others in a non-profit manner? After all, isn't a company the sum of its employees? I don't believe that argument one bit.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Is your problem that the Red Cross as an organization has to keep the interest of its employees and those it tries to aid? If that's what you're saying, those aren't mutually exclusive goals.

Oh, and people who work for non-profits <i>don't</i> have market-equivalent salaries. They could earn much more working for for-profit companies.

There are a couple of things I've found completelely horrifying about Katrina, aside from the death toll:

1. The general lawlessness of many of the communities affected by the flood:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4205074.stm

"Medical evacuations from the Superdome stadium have been disrupted after a gun shot was fired at a rescue helicopter."

2. The complete ineptitude of government in responding to it:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/31/235829/261

"Department of Homeland Security as well as other U.S. agencies were contacted by the Canadian government requesting permission to provide help. Despite this contact, Canada has not been allowed to fly supplies and personnel to the areas hit by Katrina."

People really suck.

Yes. Yes they do...not all of them, though. I just hope the fallout from the mishandling of this crisis manages to reach back to our Teflon administration.

As far as the tsunami goes, I donated to that relief effort, too...

Mental wrote:(whistles embarassedly, checks housing listings in Vancouver)

You know, if you ever seriously do start to, you really can just ask me...outside of school, I am a fairly successful agent (team) specializing in the Lower Mainland (my particular area of expertise is E/W van and downtown residential attached).

I don't know what that means, but I'd definitely have to visit first. Visiting wouldn't probably happen until next year, and it would probably only manage to happen if we sell the game we're working on right now.

If that went well, I'd have to seriously consult with my boss and reassess my work situation to see if working from there was possible.

However, if the stars did manage to align, I will definitely take you up on that offer. Not really worth discussing until I know if our game will sell, though, because that will determine a large part of my financial status at the time.

Mental wrote:I don't know what that means, but I'd definitely have to visit first. Visiting wouldn't probably happen until next year, and it would probably only manage to happen if we sell the game we're working on right now.

If that went well, I'd have to seriously consult with my boss and reassess my work situation to see if working from there was possible.

However, if the stars did manage to align, I will definitely take you up on that offer. Not really worth discussing until I know if our game will sell, though, because that will determine a large part of my financial status at the time.

There are a number of game development companies in B.C. and here in Ontario that have set up shop, so you can always look into that