Charities Upset Over Chase Facebook Contest

ssv03 writes "The New York Times is reporting that Chase Community Giving of Chase Bank recently held a contest on Facebook in which users were encouraged to vote for their favorite charities. At the end of the contest, the 100 charities with the most votes would win $25,000 and advance to the next round to have a chance to win $1 million. Initially, the vote counts for each organization were made public, but two days before voting ended they were hidden, and the final totals have still not been released. While Chase had no official leader board during the voting, several organizations were keeping track of projected winners. Those projections were almost identical to the final results, yet several organizations including Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists. They had been performing very well (some within the top 20) until the vote counters were removed. Chase Bank has so far refused to discuss the issue with the organizations. SSDP has spoken out in a press release (PDF) and is calling for a boycott."

Comments

Charities?

[Jojoba86]

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists

In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.

Re:Charities?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists

In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.

Well, drug addicts are often in need ;) As for the anti-abortion, they just *need* to be dragged screaming and kicking into the century of the fruitbat.

Re:Charities?

[Culture20]

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists

In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.

Plenty of anti-abortion groups are about helping and educating pregnant women, not advancing political change. Anti-abortion doesn't always mean anti-choice (as strange as it sounds). The MPP probably believe they're helping glaucoma patients. I don't know what the SSDP does.

Re:Charities?

[Zontar The Mindless]

That's not the point. The point is that Chase, after making the results highly public, made them vanish without explanation from public view as soon as they started trending in a direction that Chase didn't care for.

If they'd actually come out and *said* "We're disqualifying these organisations on the grounds of _______..." and then removed those groups from the tally, that would be one thing, but this is quite another.

Chase should at least be honest about what they're doing and why.

Re:Charities?

[Dexter Herbivore]

I'm guessing the SSDP wants to protect more fellow students from having their lives destroyed by the insanity of the War on Drugs.

Re:Charities?

[dontmakemethink]

Try telling a zealous anti-abortionist they're not helping people in need. That'll go over well.

Also ask the ~600,000 Americans arrested for possession (not trafficking) of marijuana if new law is or isn't required. That's 600k *annually*.

Re:Charities?

[Whatshisface]

But coming back to the original point, is that a charity? Just from reading the summary, it seems like all the groups that were removed were activist groups endorsing a specific change in laws. Its one thing to ask Chase to endorse the charity of your choice, its another to ask them to make a political donation to support your pet cause.

Re:Charities?

[nametaken]

"Students for Sensible Drug Policy" sounds like a bunch of douchebag college kids trying to game the system for 25k in free pot money. God forbid Chase dumps them for another Susan G. Komen or some such.

Re:Charities?

[NormalVisual]

Being "anti-abortion" doesn't necessarily mean one advocates the criminalization of it. I personally think abortion is a disgusting cop-out and an affront to humanity in most cases, but I also realize there is enough of an argument over when life begins that it becomes essentially a moral/religious matter, and you run into all kinds of church/state issues if you attempt to criminalize it. So, until such time as that question can be definitively answered, I think it's something that needs to be allowed to be available. Let the doctor, the woman, and optionally whatever deity she worships sort the moral issues out among themselves.

Re:Charities?

[DerekLyons]

Also ask the ~600,000 Americans arrested for possession (not trafficking) of marijuana if new law is or isn't required. That's 600k *annually*.

Lots of criminals believe themselves unfairly imprisoned if not outright innocent. I bet if we polled the murderers, they'd believe a change in the law was needed too.

Re:Charities?

[evanbd]

If that's Chase's policy, they should just explain that and be consistent about it, and far fewer people would be complaining.

Re:Charities?

[MaWeiTao]

When life begins is a scientific matter, not moral or religious. The fact that egg and sperm comprise living cells means it's alive from day one. Hell, people argue viruses are alive and they lack many of the properties of living cells. However, you can definitely argue that in those early days while the genetic material is all there to form a human it's still a clump of cells. But the first few months in, when you've got a brain forming, a beating heart, a nervous system, limps and other identifiable organs we've absolutely crossed a threshold. We now have a living human.

I realize it's not politically expedient if you're trying to push abortion, but that's a scientific fact. It may not be a fully developed human, but it's a human life, without question. I mean, if we're going to get into debates about whether a fetus is a living human then we could start applying the same conditions to a disfigured adult.

But okay, I could accept first trimester abortions. It's still very early, the fetus isn't fully developed, especially in the first months or two. And the mother has had plenty of time to decide that she doesn't want this kid. But why in the hell are there people pushing for second, and especially third trimester abortions. By that point we've gone way beyond the point of whether it's a living baby or not. Babies are born all the time very prematurely and turn out to be perfectly healthy kids. If you've gone 6+ months with that baby and suddenly decide you don't want it just have some decency and give it up for adoption when it's born.

What I can't stand is when people start playing semantics and twisting science to support a political point of view. Don't dehumanize a fetus to make abortion easier to accept. Admit that it's alive but that you want to the convenience and the choice.

Re:Charities?

[m.ducharme]

You need an education to be blue-collar these days. Marijuana convictions create a growing class of criminal entrepreneurs, not blue-collar workers.

Re:Charities?

[Anonymous Coward]

"(since the efficacy of contraception greatly increased)".... Sadly, those opposed to abortion are not infrequently also opposed to birth control and/or sex education with the inevitable result of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

You'd like to think that individuals who are opposed to preventing unwanted children would be standing in line for the opportunity to adopt such children and raise them in a loving environment. They don't. They leave them as a problem for society to solve.

Re:Charities?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Really? Slavery, abortion and infanticide is all centuries old. Unfortunately only two of these barbaric practices were stopped.

That has got to be the stupidest argument against abortion I have heard yet. Let me try another triplet. Stoning, religion and castration are all centuries old. Unfortunately, only two of these barbaric practices were stopped.

Re:Charities?

[AK Marc]

Seriously, the anti-choice movement is quite evil.

They believe abortion is murder. They are willing to go all the way to murder of their own if they think it will stop them. They try to distance themselves from the clinic bombers, but rarely do you actually hear full-out condemnation. And yes, they'll lie to stop abortions. But what I think is most horrible is that one of the proven most effective way of stopping abortions is sex ed combined with free available contraception. And the anti-choice people object to that. That makes then not pro-life, but evil anti-choice people that do not have the best interests of children at heart, but want to push their personal and religious beliefs on others against their will in a manner that they know harms others. It's not lying to prevent murder that makes them evil. It's lying to cause the situations that cause abortions, then calling abortion murder.

The few principled ones who want to stop abortions and think abortion is murder usually end up pro-choice because they realize that pro-choice pushes education and doesn't push abortions. They realize that making it illegal will still result in abortions, but that the illegal ones jeopardize not just the baby's life but the mother's as well, and they realize that a parent that wants to kill their kid before the child is even born may not be the best environment for the child, and that aborting this one so the next, when the time is right, will have a family ready to receive it and a better life is the best thing for all involved (and of course, the hind sight to realize that education and contraception would have prevented the whole situation).

Re:Charities?

[AK Marc]

Until you've lived in the culture try not to pretend that you know about it just because you've cherry-picked choice phrases from someone who makes a claim that allows you to cast the opposition in a universally negative light.

The number one way to prevent abortion is to educate and make contraception available. Organizations that claim to want to reduce the number of abortions that don't address the number one preventative measure seem to either be irrational or to have some other goal other than the stated one. Since I don't know of any organization that calls itself pro-life that pushes for education and free condoms and IUDs for all, I'm confused what their true goals are, and that's one reason people distrust them. Not to mention that there is a wide spectrum, and some are more nefarious in their methods, it's sometimes easy to lump them all together.

Re:Charities?

[sorak]

It is the pro-abortion folks who need to be dragged into the "century of the fruitbat".

As a pro-abortion folk, I'm pretty sure I got dragged into the "century of the fruitbat" nine years ago...

Re:Charities?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Pretty sure there's a sizable chunk of the middle east where all three of those are still accepted by mainstream society...whether or not that's a refutation of your argument is up for debate, though...

No debate. I could have written "in US" or "in the civilized world" or similar, and it would have been the same "argument". It's not an argument at all, just a lame attempt to condemn something by associating. Like condemning Christianity by linking it with child abuse/sex, or linking Islam and terrorism.

Re:Charities?

[amilo100]

You'd like to think that individuals who are opposed to preventing unwanted children would be standing in line for the opportunity to adopt such children and raise them in a loving environment.

I know many people who are adopted (and who adopted children themselves). Adoption is never easy (and it is a lifelong commitment). And yeah, the only orphanage in my town is run (and funded) by one of those evil churches who are opposed to abortion.

Re:Charities?

[Anonymous Coward]

When life begins is a scientific matter, not moral or religious. The fact that egg and sperm comprise living cells means it's alive from day one.

Are you also opposed to appendectomies? Because it's scientific fact that living human matter is killed in the process. You can't dispute that fact. Does that make it murder?

The question about abortion isn't as simple as "when does life start?" It's "when does an individual life start, distinct from the mother, such that the new life has individual rights, rather than being governed by the mother's right to self-determination?" This is hardly as scientific, and much more moral (or religious, if you're into that kind of thing), than you make it out to be.

But why in the hell are there people pushing for second, and especially third trimester abortions.

I don't really know anyone who seriously advocates an "anything goes" approach to abortion. Usually late-stage abortions are only considered acceptable for medical reasons, such as danger to the mother's life. That's why I'd say that "people pushing for ... third trimester abortions" is probably a strawman argument.

Re:Charities?

[Ash Vince]

Chase opened its contest to any charity whose operating budget was less than $10 million and whose mission "aligned" with the bank's corporate social responsibility guidelines.

Which basically reads as: Any charity Chase corporate management do not like is not seeing a dime.

Re:Charities?

[sjames]

When life begins is a scientific matter, not moral or religious.

However, that is not the relevant issue. Only the strictest of vegans actually condemn any taking of life whatsoever (and most will reluctantly admit that their own immune system or simply cleaning their cookware kills some form of life).

Clearly, we do not oppose the killing of any human cells whatsoever, that happens all the time no matter what we do. My individual cells have no rights to themselves. A pint of my blood extracted into a plastic bag is not a human being. When the surgeon sends a human appendix down the incinerator chute he is not a murderer.

The question is when does an embryo transition from just a group of human cells into a human being. Answers have varied widely through different times and cultures and range anywhere from the instant gametes fuse on up to 4 years after birth. All of the arguments about what point on that spectrum is correct ARE moral, religious, and philosophical. Science cannot even approach that question. There exist no objective criteria to be tested against.

Non-embarassing charities

[192939495969798999]

Obviously Chase meant the top "non-embarassing to a big company" charities. Can you imagine if Chase had to donate $1M to the Marijuana Policy Project? I'm sure the board freaked out at the thought of "chase" and "MJ" being in the same sentence and said, "do whatever is necessary to make sure we don't get that association."

So disqualify them...

[tomhath]

I wouldn't have a problem if Chase had declared an organization ineligible, but that's not what they did. Instead they wimped out and hid the vote tallies, probably blocking votes to organizations that those running the contest don't support, without even saying who or why they were disqualified.

Marketing, not charity

[xzvf]

The reason a corporation give money to a charity isn't because it believes in the charity, but because it will get a blurb in paper saying how good they are and increase the brand good will. Does anyone really expect a corporation to spend $25000 so it can be on the news with a headline "Chase supports legalizing Drugs". I won't even get to the quagmire around abortion. I'm sure if they do this again, they'll pre-screen organizations that are allowed to participate. Frankly I'd been more concerned if they screened out an organization that helps people get out of credit card debt.

Like Darth Vader said:

[kurt555gs]

" I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it any further ".

Banks, Ugh!

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[Aladrin]

And as others are saying, they -should- have disqualified them, instead of changing the game mid-stream and hiding things. The hiding is why people are -really- mad right now.

Don't get me wrong, the pro-MJ people would be pissed either way... But now -everyone- is pissed instead.

Pro-"Choice"

[Fished]

And the problem with all "pro-choice" organizations and individuals is that they only care about the adults. They never consider that the baby, could it speak, might rather live even if it's car seat wouldn't be loaded in an SUV and mom wouldn't get to have the perfect, 2.4 kid household with the perfect husband and the perfect career. Instead, they declare on rather spurious grounds that the baby isn't a baby and say, "just excise it!" And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian, or even Catholic.

I certainly agree that many pro-lifers are self-righteous blowhards. But not all of them are. You might want to do a bit more looking if that's what you think.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[thetoadwarrior]

Like anything, both sides are filled with extremist assholes.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

And the problem with all "pro-choice" organizations and individuals is that they only care about the adults. They never consider that the baby, could it speak, might rather live even if it's car seat wouldn't be loaded in an SUV and mom wouldn't get to have the perfect, 2.4 kid household with the perfect husband and the perfect career. Instead, they declare on rather spurious grounds that the baby isn't a baby and say, "just excise it!" And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian, or even Catholic.

I certainly agree that many pro-lifers are self-righteous blowhards. But not all of them are. You might want to do a bit more looking if that's what you think.

There is no such thing as a "baby" until it is born. Before that it is a faetus, a pre-stage in the creation of a baby. 99% of all chosen abortions are done before the featus has organs, let alone nervous system. It is quite immoral to force people what to do with their bodies, especially since the grounds for objections are at best some kind of vitalism - soul, spirit and other nonsense.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

So you say that deciding to end the life of a fetus is immoral. Animals in nature have been practicing infanticide since animals began walking the earth. Is it immoral to destroy a non sentient fetus versus a developing infant? If God created all things then he also built this into all animals, the only difference between us and the animal kingdom, is we do it earlier in the childs development.
 
Is it moral, or immoral neither is relevant. All things on earth do it, all have done it for thousands of years, animals just do it for different reasons than we do it.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[selven]

If you believe in something strongly (and forcing women to harbor a parasite for 9 months / killing children, depending on which way you see it, is an emotional subject), you tend to think the other side is made up of assholes.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like anything, both sides are filled with extremist assholes.

When pro-choicers start threatening, murdering and blowing up clinics that refuse to carry out abortions, then you may have a point...

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Ironsides]

To your point about most abortions around the 9th week.... take the tumor out then & see if it's a human.... not likely. Will it survive then outside the womb & develop? No... so it's not a human yet.

How do you define human? A fetus at 22 weeks development can survive to adulthood. Would you define that as human, then? A newborn baby can not survive without help. Is that newborn baby then not human as it can not survive without help?

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Arthur Grumbine]

I'm asking this seriously. If you took said fetus out of the woman at the 9 week stage, what are the chances it would survive w/o assistance?

How long would a newborn, or even a 6-month-old child survive without assistance?

Plain and simple, if it would kill my wife to have a baby and she got pregnant (and she would otherwise be able to live a semi-normal healthy lifespan), my guess is that I would want to keep my wife alive... however, I would still leave the decision up to her.

Fortunately the strong majority of anti-abortion activists believe in exceptions for the life of the mother as well as rape cases. Additionally, all cases for rape, incest, and health risks to the mother account for only 1% of all of abortions, according the the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[geekboy642]

Well, please do invent the absolute worst kinds of inhumane treatment to prove that women must have no control over their own bodies. A shockingly vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and if you can make out an expression on a fetus that's less than 12 weeks old, you've got an imagination too vivid to be anonymously yelling on the internet. Of the vanishingly small percentage of abortions that are performed when the baby has passed the normal age of viability, the vast majority of those are performed to save the life of the mother, or to prevent the infant from having a short, brutish, and pointless life. The misogynistic organizations are attacking a strawman that was never relevant in the slightest.

The abuses you've imagined are not because a mother suddenly decided, two weeks before her due date, that she didn't want a baby. Late term abortions are performed to save lives and limit suffering. We find it sane to put down a dog that's been grievously injured, but for some reason ending the suffering of a child born without a brain is some gross unjust cruelty, and you somehow believe that a child cursed to die before their first birthday should be forced to live through a year of brutish suffering, rather than being given the only kindness we have.

Finally, statistics demonstrate that women will still get abortions, regardless of how stringent the theocracy is that you place them under. Legalized abortions mean fewer women die. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive? That's the only 'choice' offered.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is quite immoral to force people what to do with their bodies

In that token, it is also immoral to force me to take care of my kids. If they're draining me, emotionally and physically, I can just ignore them right? After all, it is immoral to force me to wear myself out taking care of them. You have to take responsibility for your actions. I believe it is immoral for you to create a life, then kill it, all with support from me (the gov't represents my interests, after all). With consensual sex with contraceptives there is always a slight chance of a pregnancy. If you cannot accept the consequences that follow from your actions, then don't expect society (and me) to take responsibility instead. It is immoral to not take responsibility for a life you created; whether that kid is -5m old or 5 years old.

especially since the grounds for objections are at best some kind of vitalism - soul, spirit and other nonsense.

Nothing of the sort. That baby represents a person. It is a specific combination of genes that represent an entirely unique person. That person has been created and requires a specific decision and action to terminate. Without this, they will grow up. They will love, have friends, go to school, have kids of their own, contribute to society and die, hopefully of natural causes. What does a soul have to do with anything? It is the potential of a life that could be lived that matters. If you don't feel you are in a position to take care of it, then put the baby up for adoption.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that we have no universally excepted definition of sentience.

If you classify it as being able to experience, process, and adapt to external stimulii, then pretty much every animal lifeform on the planet is "sentient" to one extent or another. (this includes unborn fetuses)

If you try to take it to some high-level abstraction, like "Can answer questions", then babies up to several months would fail this test as being pre-sentient.

So, forgive me if I dont swallow your "Sentience" based approach, because it is both poorly defined, and self-gratifying.

The only thing here I think I can agree with is the headless/brainless baby issue; since that is basically just genetically unique tissue.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

The age of viability is a ridiculous metric to apply to the ethics of abortion. Provided you aren't a physicalist (which I realize the majority of slashdot probably is, but perhaps those could at least entertain the idea that they could be wrong), whatever it looks like shouldn't determine when it's a life; instead, it is a life when its receptor for qualia has formed. Since there is no way to know when that happens, I'd say it's best to err on the side of caution, only permitting the destruction of the potential being before a particular point, when it would very likely become a person if the mother simply ate healthy and avoided toxins. After it becomes a life, it's no longer abortion; it's murder.

I do support abortion to save the mother's life, though. Obviously, it makes more sense to save the life you know than the one you don't. Everything else is willful ignorance and irresponsibility (or in the rarer cases of rape, misfortune--I don't have a good answer for their trauma).

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time most abortions occur, the fetus has a brain, an active nervous system, a heart beat, skin, eyes, what more do you need to know that the fetus is alive?

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if life had a beginning it was just shy of 4 billion years ago (and has been going continuously ever since). But this whole debate of "Is it alive?" is really missing the point. Allow me to explain.

As a heterosexual male, I could go my entire life without engaging in sexual activity with another man and be perfectly happy. On the other hand, I were to try to go more than a month without sexual activity involving a woman in some form, I would be in a bad bad way. But other people are different. For example, A heterosexual woman could, I imagine, be perfectly happy going her entire life without sexual activity involving another woman. And then some people are homosexual and bisexual and probably even asexual (although we don't hear about that last one very much). The point is that, for many people, sexual activity with someone of the opposite sex is not just enjoyable (like eating chocolate cake) - it is necessary (like going to the bathroom).

And that, fundamentally, is the problem: heterosexual sexual activity is, for many people a fundamental need. If chocolate cake was causing unwanted pregnancies then the solution would be simple: outlaw the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of chocolate cake. But, if going to the bathroom was causing unwanted pregnancies, we could not simply outlaw going to the bathroom.

For older married couples who have already had all the children they could possibly want, the solution is simple: permanent sterilization and then bang like bunnies. For middle age married couple who are leaning against having more children but are undecided the solution is also fairly simple: birth control (if the condom breaks, you add another kid to the family).

The problem is the young single people for whom an unwanted pregnancy would be devastating. But there is a solution: abstinence. Huh? What? Didn't we just establish that heterosexual sex is a need? Well, not exactly.

Define "abstinence" to involve a 55 gallon drum of lube, an artificial vagina and a terabyte of high-quality Japanese porn (or Swedish porn, whatever). That's right, masturbation. It's a poor substitute for real sex - kind of like avoiding going to the bathroom by barfing up all your food. But the alternative (unwanted pregnancies and disease) is a lot worse.

So, here's the thing. The anti-abortion crowd need to quit trying to outlaw abortion and to instead provide our young people with the skills and resources to masturbate away their sexual needs until our young people can get to the point where they're actually ready to have children.

As an aside, we could also have a religious sect of permanently sterilized "sex nuns" and "sex monks" that would help our young people satisfy their sexual needs until such time as our young people were ready for pregnancy - but that is, somewhat unfortunately, not a realistic option.

So, anyway, the abortion debate needs to move away from the rather silly "Is it alive?" question to the more fundamental question of "How can we help our young people masturbate effectively?"

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[stdarg]

My reasoning is sound and well founded.

Your reasoning is sound but it's not well founded because plenty of people would disagree with your assumptions, particularly:

My starting assumption was that it was the presence of a mind that defines the presence of a person.

Why not differentiate between incomplete but developing minds and "empty human tissue" as you call it?

Consider that my liver is never going to become a sentient being without the intercession of some advanced technology. But if a woman is pregnant, her undeveloped fetus will probably become a sentient being with no external interference at all. Isn't that an important distinction, even though neither mass of cells has a proper mind at this pinpoint of time?

I guess you're concerned with instantaneous morality, which is odd since one of the most perplexing and distinguishing features of sentience (and consciousness in general) is its awareness of the passage of time.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[volpe]

...ending the suffering of a child born without a brain ...

A child born without a brain can't possibly be suffering.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Trogre]

Don't be stupid.

The vast, vast, vast majority of abortion cases have absolutely nothing to do with mitigating significant risks to the mother or mercifully euthanasing a non-viable foetus. Vast. It is a convenience issue - the mother doesn't want it, so she kills it and gets on with her life. Often it's documented as "risk of severe mental anguish" or some such to get around legislative issues but that's not relevant here.

Please stop saying that anti-abortionists think women should have no control over their bodies. That is a straw man fallacy. Anti-abortionists (at least the ones I've come across) claim there are two bodies involved in a pregnancy, and the women can do whatever she wants with her body as long as it doesn't harm the other. I realise the "telling women what to do with their bodies" mantra is popular in feminist circles since it can be easily twisted to look like oppression, conveniently ignoring the entire subject of the issue - the child.

Do you really think that all women who have had abortions would have done so if it was not legally offered as a first option by their GP? That claim is ridiculous and doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I can provide plenty of anecdotes, but won't bother since the plural of such is not considered "data". Yes some women will undoubtedly seek illegal abortions if no other option was legally available just like some people seek out narcotic drugs.

What this can really be boiled down to is whether or not human life itself holds intrinsic value. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't but don't pretend the abortion debate is about anything else.

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[thetoadwarrior]

Remove them from the beginning rather than letting them think they have a chance.

Re:Good for Chase.

[Psyborgue]

The fact that so many people are imprisoned or have otherwise have their lives ruined by the great war against drugs (self ownership) sickens me. Chase chose to put up a vote to determine what people believe sickens them most. Who are you or Chase to interfere?

Re:Good for Chase.

[evanbd]

And the thought of people's lives being ruined over doing something that did no harm to anyone doesn't sicken you?

Re:Good for Chase.

[quarrelinastraw]

there are other human being starving and dying and suffering

Yeah, like the many people dead or wounded due to gang violence fueled by the street drug trade, or the many people addicted to drugs who can't get medical or treatment help because they will get arrested or simply ignored, the people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq due to terrorist groups funded largely by the heroin trade.

I could go on, but you're an idiot if you think the current US policy toward narcotics doesn't cause starving, dying and suffering.

People who think caring about drug policy is for bong-toting fratboys sicken me.

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[Rockoon]

I dont need to see a disclaimer to form my opinion here.

Chase is donating 3.5 million bucks to charities, and the result is a bunch of fucking assholes with the nerve to bitch and complain about how they are doing it.

Re:Good for Chase.

[DavidTC]

It actually makes much more sense to complain and try to fix things where society is proactively hurting people than when society is just ignoring people or where some natural problem is.

I mean, an organization trying to figure out why someone is homeless is hard. Getting them off street is hard, as is making sure someone just doesn't show up to take their place.

Likewise, curing a disease is hard. We can spend millions on research that doesn't go anywhere.

Compares to those, not locking people up for drug us and not spending money to do so is incredibly efficient. We don't actually have to solve some biological or social problem. We just have to stop doing something.

It's like, if your house is falling apart, due to termites, random vandals, water damage...and a guy you're paying to run around punching holes in the wall with a sledgehammer.

Which problem are you going to address first to fix your house? I dunno about you, but I'd get the sledgehammer guy to stop, even if the other problems are 'worse' in some objective sense of how damaged your house is.

Re:Oh do please save that selfish nonsense, pathet

[Psyborgue]

"Because of course taking someone's education away"

What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself?

It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people.

Re:Not outrageous, just underhanded.

[Jesus_666]

In fact, there's a perfectly valid reason for all involved charities to be pissed off - Chase is using them for PR in ways they don't deserve. Winning a public popularity contest gives exposure to a charity and can be used for good PR. Coming up first in a rigged poll is not going to make your charity look quite as good. Chase is trying to milk their donation for PR not just in the usual way ("look, we give money to charities we like") but also by making it appear that they care about your opinion while they actually don't.

No charity wants to be associated with dishonesty.

Re:Sorry, guy, religion isn't AGAINST THE LAW

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion isn't agianst the law.

So marijuana should be illegal because marijuana is illegal?

Re:Sorry, guy, religion isn't AGAINST THE LAW

[Psyborgue]

"It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). "

Religion isn't agianst the law.

But if it was, you're saying it would be ok? If it were legal to deny a person a student loan because of their religion would it make it right? It would still be prejudice based on a personal choice. You simply don't see it that way because you do not personally approve.

Seems to me to be a pretty big difference, I suppose for the purpose of making your point, you chose to ignore it.

Legality is irrelevant to the point I was making. What is legal and what is not has little to do with what is right and wrong, what is ethical and what isn't.

"People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people."

They chose not to follow the eligibility guidelines.

I'm not debating that. I'm simply saying the guidelines are unjust and prejudiced. Of course when people make choices that go against the flow they have to live with the consequences, a subset of which can be unjust punishment. I agree... But it still doesn't make the punishment just.

Re:Amex did it better...

[DavidTC]

That's what I would do. There are too many charitable organizations with really good PR and really shitty records of actually helping anything, like PETA.

Also, a lot of organizations do good work, but don't really need large amounts of cash. Like the Red Cross. They need volunteers, not money.

And plenty of organizations do good work, but are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as having a political bent, so for maximum PR, you'd want to leave those out.

Re:Sorry, guy, religion isn't AGAINST THE LAW

[trum4n]

Religion is, however, the number one killer of human beings over that last 4.7 million years, studies have shown.

Re:Hold on

[Stormwatch]

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[ShinmaWa]

The thing that I can't get over is that Chase is not required to do anything at all. Chase might not have gone about it the best possible way, but they did give a lot of money to charities, which they are under no obligation to do. I can't help but feel a little embarrassed for people who complain over how someone else gives their money away to charities.

Why can't we at least look on the bright side and be thankful that there are charities out there that now have more funds than they had before, rather than whining like spoiled children that they didn't do it they way we wanted them to?

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[BitZtream]

No, not everyone is pissed, most of the world doesn't give a shit.

The only people i see that are 'upset' are the douche bags they disqualified, and angsty emo kids/adults who just have to lash out against them man.

Normal everyday people not only don't know about it, but those of us who do, don't actually give a shit.

Re:Hold on

[Ender_Wiggin]

Maybe you live in an echo chamber, but show me public opinion polls claiming support for legalizing Marijuana. If you're so confident, why don't you run for Congress on it, where you can bring it to the floor for a vote?

Fact is, it's a political death sentence. More people would likely oppose it than support it, despite the few rallies of college students. Any politician outside of california who openly supports it would get attacked immediately, and their opponent would be able to raise more money.

If you think Obama is going to make himself a one-term president by advocating for something Congress would never support, write him a letter telling him to stand up and try it. See what he thinks.