How to Help Haiti After 7.0 Earthquake
The stunning earthquake in Haiti on Tuesday has left the country without means to recover from the disaster. Haiti is said to be the poorest nation in the western hemisphere, 70% of its population live on less than $2 a day, and around two million live in its capital Port-au-Prince, the epicenter of the quake.
Last night residents spent the night in darkness unable to mount any rescues, all electricity was cut off since the country lacks a decent infrastructure. Brazilian military troops stationed in Haiti for the UN have so far played the most critical role in relief efforts. Other international aid organization began mobilizing this morning.
Below are a list of aid organization, which you can donate to to help in the efforts.
- Rainbow World Fund - LGBT relief fund
-
Yele Haiti - Wyclef Jean's grassroots org
Text "Yele" to 501 501 and make an automatic donation of $5 via your cellphone - American Red Cross - text "HAITI" to 90999 and make an automatic donation of $10 via cel
Publisher
Comments [38]
What a beautiful woman...
How wonderfully compassionate:
Sandra Bullock has donated $1 million towards Haitian earthquake relief. Her contribution went to Doctors Without Borders' emergency operations in Port-Au-Prince, where it has been reported that three of the organization's existing facilities were damaged, or destroyed.
She stated that ....... "I wanted to ensure that my donation would be used immediately to meet the needs of the Haitian people affected by this catastrophic event".
Bless you Ms. Bullock... thank you for your humanity.
[edit to add] I don't believe that I read this anywhere on Vp. So, as a contrast to the ultra-conservative idiots [Limbaugh, etc.], I have found her generosity to be profoundly refreshing.
I knew there was a deeper
I knew there was a deeper underlying reason why I heart her so much. Turns out to be she was hiding extra awesome in there all along!
Go Sandra! Thanks for the
Go Sandra!
Thanks for the good news!
off topic
whats happening with martha coakley?
tweet tweet @gracemoon
Grace, for the first time in
Grace, for the first time in my life I know what it's like to be in a battleground state! Wowee. Phone calls up the wazoo! Obama, Bill, Vicki K, Joe Solomonese.....
Hate to tell you all but the latest, and last poll, has em neck and neck at 48% with 3% for the Libertarian candidate. So if any of those Libertarians stray to the ReThug we're screwed.
I don't know what Coakley was thinking. She had so much visibility in the primary and kept picking up steam every day. Then after the primary--nothing. Sure it was the holidays and all, but still... I don't think she took Brown seriously, which is understandable given that his greatest accomplishment is being the father of an American Idol contestant. He's also a former Cosmo model. Total lightweight. Undistinguished state career, except that he made a point of being anti-gay marriage in a state where heaps of Republicans actually support it.
Martha's been a popular AG, but she's not a natural campaigner--a bit of a lawyerly technocrat. And even though Dems outnumber Republicans 3 to 1, more than half the state is Independent, which is where Brown is getting his support.
If anyone wants to help tonight, go to my.barackobama.com and you can do some phonebanking.
Let's all say our prayers to Ted K tonight!
p.s. as proof of what a fucktard Brown is, here he is endorsing the wingnut assertion that Obama is a bastard: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/scott-brown-obama-bastard
ugh ugh ugh
i'm really astonished that the whole of the Democratic agenda will fall apart on this simple miscalculation!
tweet tweet @gracemoon
Silver lining?
While I can't stomach the thought of Brown as our Senator (even if it is only for 2 years--whoever wins has to run again in 2012) the silver lining might be that they need to rewrite the filibuster rules, because this 60-vote thing is ridiculous! Every single bit of legislation is being watered down because of it.
christ, that would be nice!
... in the meantime, I can't look at the polling so far! let us know when its over!
ack
tweet tweet @gracemoon
Chicken Soup
OK Peeps, I'm putting on a big vat of Chicken Soup for the Queer Soul, and tummy. If you've had you H1N1 vaccine and are willing to spend a few hours in Red State Hell, you're all welcome to come celebrate Martin Luther King day tomorrow. Let's give peace a chance.
Parkers....
it's not about us....
Twitter Time @kdhales
Be careful...
If you want the monies to go to help Haitian earthquake victims, be sure to write in the comment/memo section of your check the words "Haitian Earthquake Relief." If you don't, the monies may not go to that effort. The American Red Cross is particularly notorious for this.
The Rainbow World Fund is asking that donations be made here: http://www.rainbowfund.org/donate and to specify "Haiti." They are also strongly recommending donations to CARE (who the RWF works closely with), which already has "boots on the ground" in the disaster area. 100% of these donations will go to providing water, food, medical needs, and shelter.
The BBC about an hour ago warned about texting donations via cell phone, and said that cell phone subscribers should contact their cellular carrier to confirm who the monies would be going to. Apparently a couple of scams have already popped up. Texting "HAITI" to 90999 is legitimate (goes to the Red Cross).
Hey y'all, let's keep it
Hey y'all, let's keep it friendly and on topic. And yes, I know I'm a cantankerous ass and I'm sitting here telling people to keep it friendly... feel free to give me a virtual bitchslap
.
I'm pretty skeptical on where the monies are going too. Two friends and I are sending supplies down next week. This will be an ongoing problem, so I will be donating stuff in the future too.
I would hardly characterize
I would hardly characterize the Red Cross' actions as 'notorious' when they acknowledge that they use the major, more newsworthy disasters to help them raise money for all of the less well known disasters that happen all the time. The Red Cross does great work throughout the year in all sorts of ways. I remember when this news hit 30 years ago thinking "What's the big deal? If you support the Red Cross and the work that they do then you give them money and it helps someone. Why should it matter who that someone is?"
Notorious - Defined
Since you insist on dissecting the words I use and trying to redefine what those words mean...
Notorious refers to people, places, or actions widely and unfavorably known. The word has had the same meaning since 1534.
However, that was not the reason I posted what I did. I wanted to let people know that if they wanted to be sure what little monies they had to donate were being used for what they intended, they should write that intent on the check, and should hold charities accountable who violate that intent. The ARC is widely known in a negative way for violating even written intent, something that is a matter of public record, and on the Congressional Record because it constitutes a moral breach of their Congressional Charter.
This does not imply they are the only charity that has behaved this way, just the most widely known for doing so. They were called out for it for redirecting hundreds of millions of dollars (roughly half of all contributions) after 9/11, and hundreds of millions of dollars (nearly two thirds) in donations after Katrina, by Congress.
Hence the importance of specifying in writing one's intent, and holding accountable those who violate that intent.
I know what the word means. I
I know what the word means. I don't need you to define it for me. But I'm sure anyone on here who doesn't thanks you. I just happen to disagree, as I've already told you. I don't care if the money I send to the Red Cross gets used for Haiti, Katrina, or a flood in some small town I've never heard of that doesn't make the news. I am not dissecting your words I'm pointing out that some of us (namely me) have a different perspective.
Mystic and Rusty have both also explained my intent to you, as did I. So I'm really not sure why you're still going on about this.
Exactly
"If you support the Red Cross and the work that they do then you give them money and it helps someone."
Exactly.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
WTF?
Why do you feel the need to always be argumentative with me? Or are you speaking for others again?
She seems to be making a
She seems to be making a valid point re: the Red Cross, and I for one appreciated her clarification. In fact I appreciate both your POVs on the matter--the more info the better, so people can draw their own conclusions.
Really?
By trying to make an ongoing issue seem like old news?
I've worked for and with the American Red Cross for the better part of the last two decades, strictly as a volunteer with Disaster Medical Services (and later with the Medical Reserve Corps). I saw things that made me question ARC's practices. While I'm sure there are other charities that will disregard the intent of donations made to them if that intent is not specified in writing, ARC is the most widely known for this practice. Much of "undesignated" donations end up paying for administrative overhead (40% plus), such as salaries for paid "volunteers" (mostly clerical and administrative, none actual field volunteers). I've seen it happen, even when the intent of the donors was obvious, but not written.
In addition, the ARC relies heavily on religious organizations, most notably the Southern Baptist Convention, to provide actual disaster relief services not related to medical needs. Hence why we saw widespread discrimination during the Katrina Relief effort towards LGBT persons, especially transgender evacuees in Houston, who were subject to arrest just for showing up and asking for help. Even LGBT volunteers (myself included) had to be "redeployed" home, because of said discriminatory behaviors.
ARC use to have a policy of keeping disaster victims in place, and providing them with the resources they needed to put their own communities back together. With Katrina, that policy shifted radically, with negative consequences that exist today. Read Naomi Klein's writings to see exactly what the results have been.
Hence why I support giving to CARE or RWF, or volunteering with them if you have the time and support resources. They don't discriminate, nor do they permit discrimination. They also do not redirect monies they know are intended for specific projects or relief efforts, though they do encourage writing your intent on the check, so mistakes don't occur.
And, no, I no longer volunteer with ARC or MRC, in part for the reasons above, and in part because it became clear last year that transgender persons are not welcome to volunteer any longer (though they'll gladly take my monetary donations). Seems some local church had a hissy fit about "that thing" teaching a CPR class to them, and I got dropped like a dead fly as an instructor (despite a 99% pass rate, being grossly overqualified, and working for free).
Yes, as Robin points out
Yes, as Robin points out below, you've done a bit of a bait and switch in the debate by bringing in other concerns--which would better be addressed separately--in order to supposedly prove your point. Again, Robin's viewpoint was absolutely legitimate and it would be nice if you didn't have the attitude that somehow disagreeing with you is a) not allowed and b) a personal attack.
Let's try to keep the focus on helping Haiti!
I was actually replying to
I was actually replying to your reply to me, not Robin's. I guess I forgot you three work together here. There was no bait-and-switch, btw, I was including additional information directed at you. The original "bait and switch" was in the dissecting of one word in my consumer advice (which applies to any charity) by Robin, and then using that to take what I posted in a direction not intended by me.
And I did not imply disagreeing with me constituted anything. Robin has a track record for dissecting and twisting my words when something I post offends her in some way, in a way intended to be condescending and argumentative, not to mention petty and completely out of context and off topic. I posted a general consumer warning, using a well known and publicly documented example to drive that point home, and I get criticized over the use of one particular word, a word which, btw, accurately applies in the context I meant it, using a definition that has existed since the 16th century.
This is the fourth time in the past couple of weeks she has done this, and I can document this sort of tactic back to last November. I shouldn't have to bring a dictionary, thesaurus, and lawyer to the computer with me every time I post, nor should I be required to provide a detailed list of definitions as to what words mean, what my intended usage of them is, or to provide a complete and exhaustive bibliography with cross references.
Even Annie Oakley didn't behave as ridiculously as you three have towards me, and she and I never agreed on anything. And, I can point to two very difficult and recent discussions where people here did disagree with me, and I with them, and yet civil discourse was maintained. I can even point to more heated discussion on this site that respect and civility sometimes wore thin, but that there were no hard feelings afterwards, and no one dissecting words, acting as prosecutor, or cheerleading such efforts.
I'm sorry if somehow my full support for efficiently run, secular, LGBT friendly charities who are already in place, already familiar with the culture and issues faced by Haitians, and have committed 100% of donations for Haiti to Haiti, somehow offends you three. Perhaps if Grace would develop an "IGNORE" button, so you three could just ignore my posts in the future, and in doing so avoid the temptation to dissect and twist my words and intent.
Why make this an argument?
CAMW, why are you making this an argument? I really don't get it. You made a comment. Some folks agreed with parts of it, and disagreed with other parts. I don't see any reason to take so personally what was civil discourse.
Socio/Political discussions are one of the main reasons I come to VP. But lately it seems like every issue posted turns into a conflictual discussion of your personal issues. Don't get me wrong here, we all take some shit personally. But every discussion? And with this sense of everyone is out to get me? I know these folks, and trust me, they disagree with each other a hell of a lot more often than they do with you. If you saw some of the shit that goes on in the PM, you'd die laughing.
CAMW, you do have a lot to offer. But so does Robin. So does Rusty. So does Mystic. So do we all. Let's just try to share the space and respect each other without making it about who's experiences and background are more valuable.
Seriously, this shit does not make me want to hang out here.
seriously....
"Seriously, this shit does not make me want to hang out here."
This is one of the reasons I hardly ever spend much time on this site lately (another reason being that I don't currently have internet at home).
But, in this case I can't say that I disagree with CAMW. It does seem like there's a fair amount of animosity between certain members on this site, and she can't even make a comment about Apple products not being practical for her personally without receiving a less-than-pleasant reply from Robin.
I'm not saying that these sort of things are only happening on one side. She does choose to respond when she could ignore the comments. However, based on what I've seen, it does seem like Robin tends to respond negatively to CAMW's original comments more often than CAMW does to Robin's.
In my opinion, all of it needs to stop. On both sides. One of the things I love about France is that people can disagree without taking things personally. Apparently that's not an option on this site. With that in mind, people could choose to ignore comments they disagree with or replies to comments that they find offensive.
I realize that I'm not taking my own advice in this instance, but it seems like CAMW is being attacked by friends of site administrators/editors and nothing is being done about it. Non-friends have been reported for less inappropriate behaviour than that. I felt like someone needed to stick up for CAMW, so I temporarily ignored my own advice. Won't happen again.
p.s. This isn't meant as an attack on you, Taem, I just thought your quote was a good way to start my point.
Not a problem for me
Hey Tiff,
I have no problem with your reply, and actually agree with some of it. The more time I have spent on this site and others, the more I tend to not respond to some of the things that I disagree with. I came in on this one due to CAMWs comment about people ganging up on her, coupled with a recent comment that sounded like she thought her expert opinion should hold more relevance than others. I also hoped that since I often have, and continue to value her opinion and said so here, she might hear it as a comment rather than an attack.
I have not yet had a chance to read all of the fallout, but it appears CAMW deleted her reply to one of my comments with a note about being misunderstood, so my preliminary analysis would be epic fail. I'm not particular buddies with those in control around here, so I am not going to comment on that aspect. Actually, if anything my expressed mild obsession with Grace's amazing arms has probably put her off.
Last point: Some of us are pretty prolific in our comments here. I find myself responding most often to others who are also prolific commenters. I am familiar with them, as they are with me, and a sort of normal conversational banter results. I like it. I also try to respond when I see new folks here, hoping to make them feel welcome. At times I have tried to stay away to see if others would jump in more often, but really, I can't.The community is just to damn alluring. I would love to read more voices, more often. Yours included.
And whether or not it seems that way to her at the moment, I hope to continue to read CAMW as well.
Listen people
There are no taking of sides here, and quite honestly we the editors/moderator are often at a lose when a thread spirals out of control. Or aren't around to catch something before it spirals out.
But really, should we?
How old are we here? Seems to me everyone is mature enough and knows when they are aggravated and picking at someone, or something. Everyone who comments regularly is a veteran of the online community scene. Y'all know better.
I've said this over and over again, no one works full time on Vp. all the editors have other jobs and obligations. There are no baby sitters here to monitor things 24/7.
Can we all apologize to each other, for leaping to conclusions, getting irritated and snaping?
Lets all take a step back settle down.
Please.
regards, Moon
tweet tweet @gracemoon
My comment about Apple was
My comment about Apple was not meant to be 'less-than-pleasant'. Sorry if you read it that way. It was a factual comment about my experiences. Just because I make comments in a direct and factual manner and some choose to read that as snark does not make it snark. I often comment using my iPhone and since typing is tedious on it I keep things short and to the point.
As to this particular thread my comment was adult, calm and expressed my opinion. Period. Just because Julia and I are friends don't think that means I get some sort of special treatment. Julia is not afraid to tell me when she thinks I'm in the wrong. Some months ago she gave me grief about something I said that related to Rusty in fact. To my knowledge only Annie Oakley has been banned (not counting spammers) and her comments were over the top hateful.
Edit: FYI, Tae's comment was a reference to CMW's behavior, not the conversation. In case anyone was unsure.
That was my point
I was just pointing out that your manner in responding to her comments (intentional or not) can be read as personal attacks. She's not the only one who sees them that way, so perhaps it's unfair to accuse her of overreacting or misinterpreting, when it's not hard to see it that way. Actually, it's less about what you say in your comments (they tend to be "adult, calm and express[ing] [your] oppinion) but that you continue to respond to everything CAMW says despite knowing how she'll react (whether her reaction is justified or not). It seems to me it would be easier (and less stressful for both you and CAMW) to ignore her comments if you disagree with how she chooses to respond to your replies. If you think she overreacts, then don't provoke her.
As far as mentioning friendships on this site, (and I wasn't just referring to your friendship with Julia) my point was just that I was surprised you didn't seem to have been (at least publicly) reprimanded for the tag-teaming that goes on. One of you makes a comment directed toward CAMW and the other two feel the need to jump into the discussion. So instead of having a rational discussion with another member of the site, she's being berated from all sides. I haven't looked at the terms and conditions of use of the site recently, but most sites tend to include something that forbids personal attacks. And whether or not that's your intention (and I don't think it is) that's what how it comes off when three people are responding to her reply to one of you. Friendlier conversations than those between the four of you have received "keep it friendly" reminders from editors, I was just questioning why that's not the case when it comes to these discussions.
I can't pretend to be certain of Tae's original intent with her comment. I don't know her any better than I know you or CAMW. I read it as both a comment about CAMW's comments specifically and behaviour on VP generally. The only discourse anyone can have is based on a certain amount of interpretation, correct or not. I chose to reply to her comment because, as stated, her quote fit the point I was getting at, whether that was her intention or not. My intent was 1) to let CAMW know that she was not the only one who felt like the tone was closer to attack and 2) to inform you all that your methods of replying can appear (to the outside eye, not just to CAMW, to whom you're responding) like an attack, whether or not that is your intention. My apologies if that wasn't clear in the initial comment. Consider this as an attempt to clarify. No hard feelings intended toward anyone.
No hard feelings at all. I
No hard feelings at all.
I definitely don't respond to everything CMW posts. I'm just as likely to reply to someone else or to the general blog. It has never been my intention to provoke anyone (Okay, maybe AO). I keep hoping that civil discourse can happen and keep being thwarted. If people on here who I am friendly with choose to back me up, that is their choice. I expressed to 6 women on here (after my first comment on the Haiti post was replied to in a way that I found to be uncalled for) that I had to go to work and didn't have the time or the inclination to defend myself. 2 of them chose to respond, 4 did not.
When I logged back on in the evening I again expressed that I felt differently on the subject and in that comment I actually agreed with CMW's new points (ones not expressed originally). CMW started the attack. This is her typical MO. To go on the offensive and then claim she's the victim. I am not the only one who's noticed that she does this. Quite honestly I'm tired of trying to defend myself. If civil discourse is the goal then singling me out for comments that were never intended to offend is not achieving it.
We'll have to agree to disagree then
It just seems to me that it would be easier not to respond to her comments if you dislike the way she chooses to respond to your replies. If civil discourse is the goal, that seems like the best MO. And for the record, I did state that she chose to respond the way that she does. There's no discussion on that end because she has yet to respond. I don't think her replies to your comments are more or less conducive to civil discourse than yours are to hers. However, as previously mentioned, you have at least two people backing you up in these instances. She doesn't, so naturally she ends up feeling like a victim, even if your intent isn't to victimize. Being in the minority isn't easy in any circumstance.
You're right, I did single you out, but only because I thought you might appreciate knowing that your comments (and those of the women who choose to back you up) can seem a bit agressive, even to someone who's not in the discussion. I would hope that someone would point the same out to me if the situation was reversed.
And on that note, I'm off to find dinner. Since I don't have internet at home, that means I won't be online again tonight (possibly for a couple of days) but I'll be happy to respond to your reply, if you choose to do so, the next time I'm online. Have an enjoyable Sunday. Mine's almost over on this side of the Atlantic.
Guys lets drop this
or take it into PM or I'm gonna start deleting comments on this thread.
If you have anything further to add to this discussion please do it in private.
tweet tweet @gracemoon
Not so
I forgot you three work together here...
That's pretty laughable given that I had previously stated I appreciated both your and Robin's responses, and your reply was dismissive of that even-handed approach.
As for the three of us working together--saying that doesn't make it fact. If you go back through several months worth of comments you'll see that Robin and Rusty and I have not been in conversation with you at the same time. In fact, Robin and I only occasionally ever comment on the same things, and I can find as many instances of my agreeing with YOU as I can with HER.
Also, taking exception to a word used to characterize something is not 'dissecting,' it is merely expressing one's opinion, which is supposedly what the comments section is for.
Again, I appreciate the info on the Haiti charities, but I don't necessarily draw the same conclusions as you do about what charities are best to donate to.
If all you say is accurate
If all you say is accurate then it's sad to me that such a highly visible humanitarian organization does those things.
But your original post did not mention these things, it only addressed the way that fiunds are distributed. We all know that aid organizations have overhead (salaries, building leases, office supplies, etc) and I understand that when I give money some of it will go to those things as well as immediate aid. I also don't take issue with using a high profile event to raise money for other relief. That was all I was responding to. As Mystic said, giving a different POV. Not a personal attack despite what you may think.
sources
Hi, CA_MW; there are an awful lot of specific attacks against the ARC in your post. Could you provide non-biased sources to back them up?
- especially transgender evacuees in Houston, who were subject to arrest just for showing up and asking for help
-Much of "undesignated" donations end up paying for administrative overhead (40% plus), such as salaries for paid "volunteers" (mostly clerical and administrative, none actual field volunteers).
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
Arpollo Vicks, 20, of New
Arpollo Vicks, 20, of New Orleans, and her 16 year old cousin, were arrested and detained for several days on charges of criminal trespass by Texas A&M University Police for using the women's shower facilities set up at the Reed Arena. Both are transgender. They were held for several days at the request of those running the shelter. There were also several reports of transgender evacuees being denied shelter. The local LGBT center had to come to their rescue. Vicks was fined $6,000. While accommodations should have been made, the volunteers refused, one allegedly telling an evacuee Jesus could cure her of her homosexuality.
And, as I clearly mentioned, I and a few others had to be pulled out of Houston, because we were transgender (even as volunteers, we were prohibited from using any facilities). A lesbian friend and two gay aquaintances told me they had been harassed and also forced to leave the disaster area early.
While being LBGT was somewhat accepted in New Orleans, it most certainly wasn't in Houston. These incidents were well documented by progressive media.
As for the monies, I do believe I mentioned I've worked for or with ARC over the last two decades? That aside, I'm not the only one who has witnessed or reported such behavior. While it may be technically legal to exploit peoples generosity during time of disaster for non-related non-disaster programs, I find it morally corrupt. They've done just that after 9/11, the Florida hurricanes, Katrina, etc. ARC has admitted to doing this, in the media and before Congress. Mainstream media raised a huge stink about it every time. When people donate to help others in times of great disaster, it is not supposed to be a fundraising bonanza. That money should go to those it was intended for. But, thanks to the example of ARC, now you have to specify, in writing, on the check, what the monies are to be used for.
You want to know how the monies you are donating will be used? Check out Charity Watch http://www.charitywatch.org and see for yourself.
Not the ARC
You linked the cases of transgender discrimination directly to the American Red Cross. When I Googled "Arpollo Vicks" I read a very sympathetic article, but it said nothing about the American Red Cross:
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/ARTICLE.php?AID=9498
From your original post:
In addition, the ARC relies heavily on religious organizations, most notably the Southern Baptist Convention, to provide actual disaster relief services not related to medical needs. Hence why we saw widespread discrimination during the Katrina Relief effort towards LGBT persons, especially transgender evacuees in Houston, who were subject to arrest just for showing up and asking for help. Even LGBT volunteers (myself included) had to be "redeployed" home, because of said discriminatory behaviors.
[emphasis added]
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
Please delete
[EDIT] Deleted due to being seen as a "conflictual discussion of personal issues."
Yeah thanks Grace. Everyone
Yeah thanks Grace. Everyone seems to be using the Red Cross easy donation method, text "Haiti" to 90999 and you automatically donate $10. It's added to your phone bill.
What a horrible thing to happen, I hope aid gets there quickly.
"Fight Prime Time. Read a Book"
Thanks for posting this,
Thanks for posting this, Grace. I am just hearing the news because I have been in conference sessions.
Civility is not a sign of weakness.