Slashdot Mirror


Digital Fundraising Booms For Haiti Relief

It seems that a recent digital fundraising drive for Haiti relief has stunned organizers at the Red Cross and White House. As of the last tally on Friday the campaign was at well over $8 million. "Earlier Thursday, when the Red Cross topped $3 million in text and social media donations — it hit nearly $40 million from all sources by late Thursday — spokesman Jonathan Aiken described it as 'a phenomenal number that's never been achieved before. People text up to three times at 10 bucks a pop,' Aiken said. 'You're talking about roughly 300,000 people actually spontaneously deciding, "I can spare $10 for this." And that's remarkable.' As of late Thursday, more than half of all donations to the Red Cross's Haiti relief effort had been received online, according to a news release.

124 comments

  1. well done, humans. by antimatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it seems i may have underestimated you.

    1. Re:well done, humans. by Shatteredstar · · Score: 1

      These are the things that restore a few bits of my faith in humanity. I work a help desk job so I go up and down on my faith but these stories always give it a boost and make me wish a "reboot" of the world that much less.

      --
      I do what I must because of what I must do.
    2. Re:well done, humans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ggggggggggggg AAAAAaaaaaaaaaa YYYYYYYYYY yyyyyyyyyyyy

    3. Re:well done, humans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those "donors" are going to be surprised when they get the bill. Muuaahhhaaaahhaaa.

      And I doubt many will challenge a charitable donation transaction when they receive the bill. ;)

    4. Re:well done, humans. by david.given · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      $40 million dollars is a lot of money, and will do a great deal of good in Haiti. It's great that people are willing to donate to help people --- goodness knows they need it, and we can all spare it.

      But to put matters into perspective, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is spending that amount every three and a half hours (based on the Congressional Research Service figure of $2 billion a week, which comes out to about $12 million an hour).

  2. pointless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haiti needs complete rebuilding not temporary relief which will vanish once the earthquake new disappears from the front pages. it needed that much money and more before the quake even hit. not it needs demolition and rebuilding not quick fixes and temporary aid.

    1. Re:pointless... by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, they need things like water *yesterday*, but I'm not sure if any amount of money can get the basics they need in time, only so many flights can land at the airport per day (and they can't fly in the big boys like the C5 Galaxy) and the port has no cranes to unload ships. Supplying water to ~3.2M people is a huge order even with nearly unlimited resources, for instance the Nimitz class carrier the navy brought to the area can make ~400k gallons of fresh water a day, but that's just a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:pointless... by tiberus · · Score: 1

      haiti [sic] needs complete rebuilding [...]

      From what I have heard on the news about the status of building safety I would agree but, they need aid first. Let's not put the cart before the horse here. Haiti needs a lot of things and they all have a priority.

      Uh, they need things like water *yesterday* [...]

      Keep in mind all the 'aid' that was rushed into the areas devastated by Katrina... Truck loads of clothing and food that rotted in place as a result of little to no planning on how to get the aid to those who need it. I fully understand the desire to rush in and save the day, sadly that is most likely to result in wasting time and effort and can make things worse.

    3. Re:pointless... by afidel · · Score: 1

      There has been no water service since the quake, that means no water to clean the wounded, no water to drink, no water to clear human refuse, etc. That's a very serious problem and waiting is *not* the thing to do. An average male in good health can only survive about 7 days without water in the ~90 degree conditions in Haiti right now which means a LOT of those 3.2M people are going to start dying soon.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:pointless... by AirDave · · Score: 1

      The USAF is flying is using C-17s to fly in relief supplies. They are not exactly small. Their payload is 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo according to Wikipedia.

      Given the limitations of the airport capacity, this looks like a great opportunity to show the capabilities of the V-22 Osprey. With a range of nearly 900 miles, they could fly from Florida and land in helicopter mode virtually anywhere in Haiti. With aerial refueling, they would not need to take on fuel in Haiti, which is another scarce resource.

    5. Re:pointless... by RDW · · Score: 1

      'haiti needs complete rebuilding not temporary relief which will vanish once the earthquake new disappears from the front pages. it needed that much money and more before the quake even hit. not it needs demolition and rebuilding not quick fixes and temporary aid.'

      Haiti desperately needs both immediate relief and longer-term help. Several of the aid organisations now responding to the emergency already have long-term commitments to Haiti. One I happen to know about is Oxfam:

      http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/emergencies/haiti-earthquake.html
      http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/where_we_work/haiti.html

      They make efficient use of donations, with only 10% going on (essential) running costs, and work directly at a local level rather than just dishing out the cash:

      http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/faq/other.html#admin
      http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/what_we_do/binmyth_slideshow.html

    6. Re:pointless... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I think flaming Osprey fuselages are the last things the Haitians need landing on them. Might want to use something more reliable.

    7. Re:pointless... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Uh, that means a C-17 can fly 20,000 gallons of water, to supply the 10 quarts of water per person per day needed to double their survival time to 15 days you would need over 450 flights a day. I doubt the airport can support that many unloads a day.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  3. The low amount and high publicity is key by gurps_npc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is easier to get 4 million people to give $10 then it is to get 4,000 people to give $10,000. But it takes a wide spread publicity campaign, which the networks are giving away for free. By the way, if every person in the world sends me 1 penny (just ONE penny) via paypal to me at gurps_npc (at) hotmail.com, then I will be very happy.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe you. I think you would just have bigger TVs, extra car, maybe some sort of boat or recreational vehicle. Or would have gone on an extra vacation to a nice sunny beach in the Caribbean.

    2. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually I'm anti-materialism, so I have zero interest in cars, TVs, or other junk. Hell the computer I'm typing on was built in 2002! Instead I'd probably follow in Benjamin Franklin's footsteps, save the extra ~$25,000 per year in my bank, and then retire when I'm circa 40.

      After that I'd just tinker around, trying to help people wherever I could.

      BTW it isn't "the government's money". They didn't sweat and labor to earn it. I did.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by Maniacal · · Score: 2, Informative

      My wife called me this morning and say she was going to donate so I gave her the texting number to do it. She said no to the texting because she wanted to give $100. It was uncomfortable for me at first. We are far from rich, have a mortgage, 4 kids, etc. But it took me about 15 seconds and I was on board. It wasn't her convincing me because she didn't try. It was me looking inside and being ok with it. $10 would be easy for us. $100 will cause a little discomfort. I'm ashamed at myself that it took me 15 seconds to realize that our discomfort is nothing compared to what those people are going through.

      --
      MG
    4. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would pay off debt. Trust me, I've lived with debt and without, and am MUCH happier without the debt.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    5. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pay as much in taxes as I make in a year after taxes. You have my pity. It must be so hard to survive on so little.

      I donated $100 also.

    6. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by MindPrison · · Score: 2, Informative

      By the way, if every person in the world sends me 1 penny (just ONE penny) via paypal to me at ***lotsofburpspaypalaccount***, then I will be very happy.

      If everyone sends ANYONE a penny via paypal - paypal will be happier than you.

      --
      What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    7. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by MindPrison · · Score: 1

      But you love your Commodore 64 ;)

      --
      What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    8. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by trjonescp · · Score: 1

      By the way, if every person in the world sends me 1 penny (just ONE penny) via paypal to me at gurps_npc (at) hotmail.com, then I will be very happy.

      From: service@paypal.com

      Your payment for $0.01 USD to gurps_npc@hotmail.com has been sent.

      --
      Only speak when it improves the silence.
    9. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by psithurism · · Score: 1

      BTW it isn't "the government's money". They didn't sweat and labor to earn it. I did

      Of course it was all your own work. You were driving on your private roads on the way to work, flying your privately air-controlled jetways if you have to, using your private security forces to keep order handle fires and other disasters. Of course you didn't see a lot of disasters because your building codes and city management prevented and minimized them. You must have bailed out your own bank, and used the internet which sprang from your privately created DARPA-net to post your slashdot comments.

      All on your own. Must have been a pretty big task. Congrats they _should_ give you "your money" back.

    10. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by nacturation · · Score: 1

      My appetite for donating was diminished somewhat when I heard that some Haitians were protesting by stacking up barricades of dead corpses and rocks (blocking relief efforts in the process) because handouts weren't getting to them fast enough. I guess no matter what country one looks at, there's always the few ungrateful bastards who do shit like that instead of focusing their energy on helping others.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    11. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by CecilPL · · Score: 1

      I gave one hundred. I'd give more if the government had not sucked-away almost $25,000 in taxes last year.

      Wait a second. The government only sucked away $25,000 in taxes, not $30,000. Doesn't that mean you have an extra $5,000 to give? Are you asking us to believe you wouldn't be giving us the same line if your tax bill was only $20,000? Or does $25,000 just happen to be the a priori number at which you can't afford to give any more.

      Not knocking your donation at all; that was very generous of you. I'm just saying don't blame the government for you not being able to give more.

    12. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by CecilPL · · Score: 1

      BTW it isn't "the government's money". They didn't sweat and labor to earn it. I did.

      Come on, it's not like "the government" is some guy who's taking all your money and using it to sip margaritas on the beach. "The government" is using your money, and my money, to operate schools, hospitals, roads, police, fire, the military, help out people who are in need, etc.

      BTW - did you know that if you save a large percentage of your income (~60-70%, easy to do if you're anti-materialism), you can save enough to retire within 5 years? Imagine being retired in your 20s.

    13. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>You were driving on your private roads on the way to work

      Since roads are funded by a toll paid at the gasoline pump, there's no reason for government to be sucking money from my paycheck to pay for roads. The cost was already paid when I filled-up the car.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>it's not like "the government" is some guy who's taking all your money and using it to sip margaritas on the beach.

      You might want to rethink that. There are "some guys" in Congress who do exactly that, or else use taypayer-paid government planes to fly themselves (and their kids) to Europe for a vacation, or..... I could go on and on.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    15. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by Eivind · · Score: 1

      That's slightly optimistic, but yes, you can save enough fairly quickly. As a rule of thumb, if you've got 15 times what you spend yearly, you don't need to work anymore.

      Which means if you save half your income, you're done saving in 15 years, assuming you want to continue living equally frugally. Most people probably don't. So no, you can't save enough to retire in 5 years, not the kind of retirement most people would want anyway.

      You can however, without even going to extremes, retire by the time you're 40 or 45, though there's a tendency it tends to become later if you've got kids, both because they cost money, and because there's a tendency that both parents don't work full-time all the years with kids.

    16. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>The government only sucked away $25,000 in taxes, not $30,000.

      Only? That was over 40% of my earnings. That means I was a virtual slave of Uncle Sam from January to June 2nd, where all the money earned during that time was sent to the U.S. or State governments.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:The low amount and high publicity is key by psithurism · · Score: 1

      GP says: You'll waste all that money on your self instead of donating it.
      Parent replies: Yeah I will just in a different way than you expected.

      Just wanted to point that out since I don't really see the +4insight there. Then again I don't see the -1 off topic you got moderated for earlier, maybe you just attract some funky moderation, Commodore.

  4. let's follow the money by NetNinja · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is there a way to follow all this money closely. One slip up in mismanagement and this phenomenon is history.

    1. Re:let's follow the money by dave562 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes there is a way to follow the money. I'm 95% certain that the Red Cross is still using Raisers Edge to track their fund raising. It's a trivial matter to generate a campaign report that details who gave the money and what fund it went to. As far as tracking it from the fund to actual recipient, I think you're going to find that it gets wasted in the same way most charitable donations get wasted. Well over 50% of the money gets consumed in administrative overhead.

    2. Re:let's follow the money by Itninja · · Score: 1

      I assure you that someone, somewhere is getting rich(er) from millions of 'administrative costs'. That's why I never give money to any charitable organization that has a salaried staff. You need people to do the job of course. But they should be given room & board, a small living stipend for basic expenses, and never, ever, have their income determined as a percentage of the take.

      I've seen posting on Craigslist for positions with non-profits paying 50K a year or more. Not exactly a towering wage to be sure, but also not where I want my money going.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    3. Re:let's follow the money by nairnr · · Score: 1

      I call Bull Shit... If you take a look at one example it details the administration expenses as 6% of fundraising. True that is one chapter, but saying 50% of donated money goes to administration is totally unfounded.

    4. Re:let's follow the money by psithurism · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you're going to find that it gets wasted in the same way most charitable donations get wasted. Well over 50% of the money gets consumed in administrative overhead.

      The redcross is not most charities; they have a very good reputation for low overhead. Katrina lost only 9% of your donation to overhead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross. The red cross is one of the few charities I still donate to because of their low overhead costs.

      And GP, the red cross has been around since before 1900 and whatever slip ups they might be accused of, people are still donating.

    5. Re:let's follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woo, 50k a year. That's less than the median salary in the US. Spendy!

    6. Re:let's follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is under 10% for the Red Cross:
      http://www.redcross.org/www-files/Documents/pdf/corppubs/FY09FinancialStatement.pdf

      True, it depends on one's definition of administrative - I suspect it would be higher if you included nurses administering shots for instance.

      I believe you are looking for The United Way (15-20% overhead by having the umbrella charity) or one of the scam charities.

    7. Re:let's follow the money by Phoenix666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I run the Interactive department for one of the key non-profits involved in this effort. We've been working around the clock since the earthquake to set up online donations, informational pages, disaster-coordination tools like haiti.ushahidi.com, and mobile giving. 100% of the money is going to Haiti, starting tonight (as credit card transactions have cleared.) No one is taking "administrative fees."

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    8. Re:let's follow the money by xirusmom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, my question to you is: Can you volunteer full time, half time? Specially right know, who can afford to leave their jobs for weeks to go to Haiti to volunteer full time?
      10% overhead is a very reasonable figure if we cannot bother to get our butts out of the couch and go there ourselves.

    9. Re:let's follow the money by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Charitable organizations, like any organization, need permanent staff to operate efficiently. You might get college kids to work for you over the summer for nothing but room and board, but no one will work for you on any kind of long-term basis for that. If you want long-term employees, particularly skilled employees, you have to pay for them. Sure, they might work for you for less than they could get in the private sector (and many do), but they still need money to feed their own families.

      Saying you refuse to give to any charities because there may be some amount of waste in them is just a way for you to rationalize your own selfishness. The fact is these organizations do far more good than any of us would be capable of or willing to do on our own. Because we won't or can't go out and dig new wells in Africa or help rebuild houses in Haiti or any of the other things these charities do, we give money to them to help them do it instead. They in turn hire people who know how to do this stuff in the most effective and efficient way possible.

    10. Re:let's follow the money by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That may or may not be an especially good idea.

      There are definitely "charities" that, even if not total scams, spend far too much on paying their CEOs and executive directors and so forth, and sending them on important fact finding missions to poor(but pleasantly sunny) places. You definitely want to avoid those.

      However, the point of a charity is not to assemble the greatest concentration of self-sacrificing moral goodness available; but to turn donations(in dollars or in kind) into results that match the stated goal of the charity. The measure of a charity's efficiency, and thus its worth as a possible donation recipient, is determined by how efficiently it does so. There are most likely some cases where volunteers are, in fact, the most efficient means. There are others where expensive experts are, in all likelihood, the most efficient.

      You donate to a charity because you want your money to effect its goals, whether the goals are pulling people out of the rubble, vaccinating children, reducing unplanned pregnancies, filing FOIA requests, or whatever. Why judge them on how they distribute their resources, rather than on how efficiently they achieve their results?

    11. Re:let's follow the money by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

      There is less waste when you give to non-profits who have salaried employees, because they know what they're doing. It is far more wasteful when you are relying on volunteers who may or may not show up, there are no defined divisions of labor, there are no communications systems, etc. That's what happened after the tsunami, which didn't have the non-profit infrastructure, and most of the food and supplies that were donated rotted at the ports and airports because there were none of what you called 'highly paid' salaried nonprofit workers to distribute it.

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    12. Re:let's follow the money by afidel · · Score: 1

      Uh, most 501c3's operate with an overhead between 5 and 15% with a total average of 13.6% according to this paper I found with a quick Google. The Red Cross appears to have higher than average expenses at 18% of funds raised, but only ~10% of total expenses (non-donations account for the discrepancy) according to this.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    13. Re:let's follow the money by Extremus · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! However, while I trust Red Cross and other serious institutions, I am a little bit skeptical about the use of the money. To be more precise: when the resource is given to local authorities. Living in a developing country, I tired of seeing money and othe donations vanishing in all levels of local administration. This seems to be especially true during the "reconstruction" stage after disaster, when it is easier to hide corruption in false contracts with contractors.

    14. Re:let's follow the money by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If they won't take my blood they can't have my money. Apparently anyone who has spent 6+ months in Europe has a level of culture too high for the average American to deal with during a transfusion.

      That and their CEO makes $565,000/year, plus they spend about 11% of their intake on overhead and took a $100 million government bailout.

    15. Re:let's follow the money by Bertie · · Score: 1

      Some of that money's going to be wasted, you need to accept this. It's utter chaos out there and the people that need help the most are not always going to be the ones that get it first, simply because it's harder to get it to them. There are going to be warehouses full of supplies with nobody to distribute them. Somewhere else there will be people ready to give out aid parcels but their supplies won't have turned up. That's just the nature of the beast. Relief efforts like this are really hard and necessarily imperfect.

      But don't let that put you off helping out. Give what you can. Even if it doesn't all get through it'll still make a difference, which it's most definitely not going to do sitting in your wallet.

    16. Re:let's follow the money by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      While it is true that most charities waste a lot of cash 50% is high. It is ALSO true that it is fairly easy to get a report on charities and figure out how much money they waste. Check the internet, and I see a Forbes report. As per Forbes, the average charity wastes 16% of it's cash on overhead. The redcross wastes 9%.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    17. Re:let's follow the money by Itninja · · Score: 1

      I could do full time if I got a place to sleep, food to eat, and a little money for personal items. The only thing that keeps me here currently are the two small children I am responsible for. But most of the childless folks in my peer group did exactly that during Katrina: they quit their jobs and spent a year+ volunteering. I donated quote a bit of money to them because I knew they were not doing for the money. There is no reason to think they won't do the same thing for Haiti; that's just the type of people they are. I would go too were it not for my kids.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    18. Re:let's follow the money by dave562 · · Score: 1

      As numerous people have pointed out, the 50% figure was way off base. I was just eluding to the point that just because the Red Cross sends ## million dollars of aid to Haiti doesn't mean that the Haitian's are really getting anywhere close to the full 100% of those millions.

      Administrative overhead isn't the only drain on a donation. There are huge logistical costs involved in just about any sort of relief effort. Sending $10 worth of food to a place like Haiti might end up costing $100 once you include administrative, logistical and other associated costs. Again before people freak out, I'm not trying to suggest that it really costs $100 to send $10 worth of supplies to Haiti. I have no idea what it costs. I do know that it isn't free.

    19. Re:let's follow the money by xirusmom · · Score: 1

      So do I. And that is the reason I am happy to donate money as long as the organization use it wisely.
      There are a lot of NGOs who do a great job even, if they are paying some of their people. And working for one of them is usually a big pay cut from what one would get on private companies, so you will get committed people even if you are paying them a salary.
      Of course, there are the ones with 50% overhead as well as scammers, but that is our job as donors, to do a decent research before giving any money.

    20. Re:let's follow the money by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      Except they initially misappropriated money from the 9/11 donations

      http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/rc_blinks.html

      Try the clinton foundation. Bill is a sscumbag...err I mean politician, but I honeslty believe he cares about Haiti

    21. Re:let's follow the money by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I assure you that someone, somewhere is getting rich(er) from millions of 'administrative costs'. That's why I never give money to any charitable organization that has a salaried staff.

      Agreed. That's why I'm giving all of my money to Scientology, where they make recruits work for free. Zero overhead, hard to beat that!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    22. Re:let's follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's so much "culture" in Europe, why don't you take your bitch ass back there you little condescending douchebag?

  5. Doctors Without Borders/Small Dog Electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Small Dog Electronics, an Apple Specialist (and a darn fine one at that) matched customer donations, up to $200 per customer, and will be sending over $20,000 to Doctors Without Borders in the coming days! Check them out, smalldog.com. Good people.

  6. Red Cross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, how much of that money will actually go to helping the people in trouble?

    A vast percentage of those donations will go to "infrastructure" costs (ie. inefficiencies, waste, and profiteering). I have first hand experience with how they work. Shameful.

    1. Re:Red Cross? by afidel · · Score: 1

      90% of fiscal year 2008 expenses went to program costs, 4% to fund-raising, and 6% to administrative expenses, so 90c of every dollar you donate go directly to the people they serve. (source)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  7. This will not treat the true cause by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I can certainly agree with donating to charity to help people who have hit unexpected hard times, the root cause of the scale of the crisis is the sheer fact that the country lives in pre-industrial conditions under an oppressive, corrupt government, which ultimately means that massive numbers of people are living in concentrated areas, in buildings unfit for handling disasters. An earthquake of the exact same magnitude - or greater - in an equally populated area of the US, would have suffered a fraction of the casualties. So ultimately, the cure to their woes is not foreign aid, but more individual freedom, less government corruption, and the development of industry and improvement in living standards, which will culminate in safer buildings and residences.

    1. Re:This will not treat the true cause by afidel · · Score: 1

      Dude, it's the poorest place in the hemisphere, the freaking presidential palace collapsed for gods sake, there IS no money to support proper building standards. The only areas largely unaffected anywhere near Port au Prince were the hills where the houses were basically sitting directly on bedrock, any soil that could undergo liquification did so and basically none of the buildings were anchored to the bedrock since that's very expensive.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:This will not treat the true cause by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right, but it's not that clear-cut. An analogy can be drawn to Africa where giving countries food and water doesn't solve any of the root problems, and can even foster dependencies, making the root cause even worse. Still, the inexorable wall every organization or individual has to face is that there's no point fixing the long run if everyone is going to die of starvation and lack of medical care within the week. Sure, we'd all like to change their government, build infrastructure, and up their standard of living, but not at the cost of lives right now.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    3. Re:This will not treat the true cause by Chineseyes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I will get modded to hell for this but as someone who is of Haitian decent and has family there right now the true cause of the corruption is bribery from states, corporations and even the IMF. The rice riots are a perfect example When the IMF loaned much needed money to Haiti it came with requirements that they open the country to "Free Trade" (Many Haitian politicians got their palms greased in this deal then left the country) when that happened American corporations flooded the market with cheap food which sounds great at first but when you consider the fact that the majority of the population made its living as farmers it doesn't sound so great. Farmers either lost their businesses or were forced into what amounted to virtual slavery for corporations who conveniently had money to lend them in their hour of need as long as they grew the crops (which were largely inedible) that the corporations wanted. Now you say "It all worked out great the farmers now have jobs, everything worked out for all parties!"

      WRONG, the corporations paid the farmers pathetic prices for their crops because they were desperate and with agriculture being the only means of earning a living everyone in the country turned to farming, they tore down every tree in site in order to use every bit of land so they could earn enough just to survive. The worst part about this happened much later, with large areas of land in Haiti virtually treeless due to over-farming, Haiti got pounded by hurricanes three years in a row. With no trees to hold the ground into place when there was flooding large areas of land simply washed away killing thousands.

      If the world really wants to help Haiti we need to do three things....

      1.) Forgive much of Haiti's debt
      2.) Lift all of the ridiculous restrictions that came with the debt
      3.) Restrict foreign corporations and states from meddling in the country's politics

      --
      I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

      --A wise old fart named SC0RN
    4. Re:This will not treat the true cause by BearRanger · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I beg to differ with part of your claim. All parts of the US are not equally prepared for an earthquake. A large earthquake on the New Madrid fault anywhere near St. Louis or Memphis will likely result in mass casualties, in spite of efforts in recent years to improve building standards. Those old, historic and largely brick downtown sections will be most vulnerable. And let's face it, it's not the number of casualties that trigger the charitable response anyway, although that's a contributing factor. It's the ongoing suffering of the survivors. Not that ongoing suffering did much for the hearts of many Americans in light of hurricane Katrina. When I hear the comments of idiots like Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh I have to wonder why the Haiti and New Orleans disasters are different from, say, the Indian Ocean tsunami in how much we're supposed to care or how much as a nation we should give...

    5. Re:This will not treat the true cause by nacturation · · Score: 1

      "The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."
      - Captain Picard (TNG: "Symbiosis")

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:This will not treat the true cause by BearRanger · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Seriously? Just mentioning divisive figures by name is not reason enough to make a post inflammatory. Oh well, moderation is an imperfect process...

  8. Great coverage on Boing Boing by StefanJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    I donated to Mercy Corps the old fashioned way, by entering a credit card number into a website.

    Boing Boing's Xeni Jardin has posted some interesting stuff on Boing Boing. It seems that enough of the high-techie infrastructure survived to allow people to keep in touch and look for lost relatives:

    The internet is a vital form of communication, as are cellphones—when they work—and she is seeing people in Haiti using social networking services as a means to try and locate missing loved ones within Haiti. The environment is so chaotic and roads so badly damaged that even in-country, mobile technology and web-based social networking services like Facebook are playing a vital role in the reconnection process. Don't assume that because Haiti is so poor, nobody's using the internet. She says cell service has been spotty, with certain carriers performing better than others. She connected to us using WIMAX, and the degree to which that service has performed during the disaster makes her a real believer in the promise of that particular wireless technology.

    AIDG's Catherine Lainé, live from Haiti (BB Video)

    Update from Doctors Without Borders team in Port-au-Prince (Cool inflatable MASH-like field hospital!)

  9. Slave fire sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could use a crate full these days...

  10. Interest Side Note - Trouble Getting Donations Out by wbav · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A second article states that it usually takes 90 days for the donation to be transferred.

    While the phone companies are looking at how to speed this up, am I the only one who believes that this would be a good way for some banks to earn back some credibility? It seems like they could give the Red Cross a 90 day loan to give them the money today, at 0%. Makes them look really good.

    --

    =================
    Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
  11. Now that Technology has caught up by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    If people were willing to vote for American Idol, they would probably be willing to donate to AID using the exact same services.

    I think it was just a matter of not being able to pledge money through your phone so effortlessly and efficiently. Giving your bank account info to some aid organization over the phone was more expensive and time consuming. Plus they take money monthly and not everyone wants to cover Red Cross' Paycheck unless they are actively working on an emergency like this one.

    So now what excuses would you have left besides being a cheapscate? Especially if you spend more money texting reality TV shows every other week anyways.

    1. Re:Now that Technology has caught up by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's the same reason why people started to buy music online a lot once it became convenient to do so. Ditto for the popularity of services such as Steam, etc..

      In general, if you make parting with one's money as easy as a few clicks / button presses, you tap directly into "impulse spending", driven by emotion of the moment. I've been reading about the consequences of the earthquake in a newspaper at lunch, saw the photos and the estimated death toll, and then noticed the phone number for SMS donation - so I whipped out my mobile and texted it right there. If it involved more effort than that, I'm not sure how long it would take me to get to it, if I ever did at all.

  12. People rule by mmklein · · Score: 0, Troll

    So does one local company here in Vermont - Small Dog Electronics. They matched donations, up to $200, and will be sending over $20,000 to Doctors Without Borders in the next few days! They're good people too! www.smalldog.com

  13. Re:Interest Side Note - Trouble Getting Donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A second article states that it usually takes 90 days for the donation to be transferred. While the phone companies are looking at how to speed this up, am I the only one who believes that this would be a good way for some banks to earn back some credibility? It seems like they could give the Red Cross a 90 day loan to give them the money today, at 0%. Makes them look really good.

    Sorry that was a typo, it should have said 30 days. Same link though.

  14. You can help too by el_jake · · Score: 1

    Donate and Help the Médecins Sans Frontières International MSF
    http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/donations/
    Or Unicef, so many children need help at this moment... So many are either alone or hurt.
    http://www.supportunicef.org/site/pp.asp?c=9fLEJSOALpE&b=1023561

    --
    In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
  15. Apparently I donated 24 times last year by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1
    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Apparently I donated 24 times last year by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      That was sarcasm. I remember what Bush did to Aristide and Powell trying to explain to the press why if we didn't depose a democratically-elected President, why Aristide couldn't go back to Haiti when he said he wanted to.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Apparently I donated 24 times last year by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      I couldn't tell it was sarcasm right off the bat because it sounds too much like something my father-in-law would say with a straight face!

    3. Re:Apparently I donated 24 times last year by operagost · · Score: 1

      Didn't read the link, huh? That's OK... don't. It's a belligerent blog entry that can be summed up like this: "Rush Limbaugh is an asshole and hates Obama so much he's willing to let Haitians die." It's not true, of course, but we get the kind of media we deserve.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  16. CHaritable donation by Killer+Orca · · Score: 1

    Since this is a charitable donation, in the U.S., is there some way to get it counted off taxes? It is via phone, how do you show those records?

    1. Re:Charitable donation by wbav · · Score: 1

      Does your donation represent 1% of your annual income? If so, then I guess you could use your phone bill, printed out. That said, I have a hard time believing someone only makes $1,000 a year or less would have a cell phone.

      --

      =================
      Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
    2. Re:CHaritable donation by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Print off your statement.

    3. Re:Charitable donation by afidel · · Score: 1

      Huh, I just add up all my charitable donations and add it to the appropriate line on whatever schedule it is put on. I keep all my receipts for such things in case I get audited so I would just keep a copy of the phone bill showing the donation. There is no requirement that the donation total 1% of your income.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Charitable donation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own a corporation and I only pay myself $1000 a year. I thought being my own boss would be great but despite my repeated requests to myself, I have refused to give myself a raise.

    5. Re:Charitable donation by wbav · · Score: 1

      That must be my misunderstanding then. I thought all deductions required passing 1% of your annual income. I may be wrong though, it has been nearly a year since I looked at the tax rules.

      --

      =================
      Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
    6. Re:CHaritable donation by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't know how you guys have it set up in the States, but here in Canada, the non-profits who set up a similar donate-by-SMS scheme have also made a website where you can go and print out a receipt, specifically for tax purposes. You may have something like that as well.

    7. Re:Charitable donation by afidel · · Score: 1

      If your contributions are less than $500 in noncash value or any amount in cash you use 1040 schedule A, otherwise you use Form 8283. For any single contribution over $250 you need "a contemporaneous written acknowledgment" though a receipt should satisfy that requirement for a cash donation.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  17. I got your link right here, pal by Krishnoid · · Score: 1
    Incidentally, any nonprofit can get a fee waiver:

    **ALL organizations collecting for disaster relief in Haiti are eligible to receive fee waivers. Please send an e-mail to nonprofit@paypal.com for fee waiver consideration.

    Too bad they don't mention this on the http://www.paypal.com/ page.

  18. and the money won't even go to Haiti by Yo+Grark · · Score: 1

    Red Cross is notorious for only spending what they feel they need to. In other disasters only 10% of the money donated ever reached the actual disaster, and of that, there was a huge overhead.

    Sorry folks, just not worth it. Do a little digging first, there are MUCH better charities out there that have a LOT more (or all!) of the money you donate going directly to Haiti.

    Yo Grark

    --
    Canadian Bred with American Buttering
    1. Re:and the money won't even go to Haiti by KenSeymour · · Score: 3, Informative

      These people seem to disagree with you. To get on this list, 75% or
      more has to go to program services.

      http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Haiti.html

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    2. Re:and the money won't even go to Haiti by b0bby · · Score: 1

      As an example of an alternative, I gave to americares.org. They get an excellent Charity Navigator rating.

      As for the Red Cross, the fact that they only spend what they think they need to is not necessarily bad in my book. It means they'll have money & supplies for the lower profile problems they tackle. If they can't efficiently use all they are given for a particular problem, I'd rather they don't waste it.

    3. Re:and the money won't even go to Haiti by Giranan · · Score: 1

      Citation needed, buddy. That's one huge accusation to make without something to back it up.

    4. Re:and the money won't even go to Haiti by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      A lot of people donated to Red Cross after 9/11, but the only real logistical issue the had was a blood shortage due to the lack of long-term storage facilities: blood doesn't keep more than 40 days or so under typical storage conditions, so you really can't stock up.

      They wanted to use much of the money donated for the construction of cryogenic facilities and other infrastructure improvements to be better prepared for the next disaster, but unfortunately they had advertised that donating would be specifically helping "victims of 9/11", so instead of building up infrastructure, they paid out awards of millions of dollars to the families of the victims.

      Lots of people made mistakes there. One group was Red Cross in their poor use of the disaster to promote themselves. Another was the donators, who unreasonably expected the money they donated to go towards the current disaster.

      Newsflash, it takes time to build up resources that can be used and also to train personnel to use them. When a disaster occurs, you use the stocks you have on hand, money is almost useless. You can't magic up an extra hundred generator trailers if all you have is the money to buy them with.

      You send the materiel you have and hope that the donations match up to replenish supplies afterward. People making donations need to be aware of this, as it appears Red Cross did not learn the right lesson.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  19. Proud to be American by sponga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At times like these it really makes you proud to be an American to see the great amount of donations going out even in this terrible economy and good to see people have sympathy for others.

    Donations by private Americans a lot of the time donate more than a lot of countries combined but make sure you donate to a reputable charity because online fraud is at an all time high after incidents like these.

    I have two family members who are R.N.'s and a neighbor on wait with the Orange County, CA disaster team, cash is one of the best things you can donate because it costs so much to transport the material.

    UPS is shipping anything for free under 50lbs
    $4 million so far donated to the Salvation Army by text
    $8 million donated to the state department by text
    and now I am sure the Red Cross will step it up with this

    1. Re:Proud to be American by operagost · · Score: 1

      Anti-American troll coming in 3... 2... 1...

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Proud to be American by BearRanger · · Score: 1

      Proud to be human. Americans of course qualify too. But many countries are offering aid, even though the American media devotes little time to that fact. Check out the pictures in this CBC story for a brief sampling. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/15/haiti-earthquake.html

    3. Re:Proud to be American by sponga · · Score: 1

      Yeah no doubt, especially the French for their quick response time as they had some of the first crews on the ground. But not much can be done until the U.S. military brings in the heavy hardware and they are the ones who have great majority of C-17's to transport cranes, generators, water purification, etc..

      Americans get a lot of crap around here and they seem to dwell on the bad news a lot around here, it just needs to be put into perspective that the U.S.A.F and Navy are the ones who will be doing the heavy hauling.
      Army Core of Engineers and Seabees will have that place turned into a full operation within no time, military can do some things right and efficient besides killing. Although if they don't get some security in there soon it is going to be anarchy and Haitian gangs are not known to be polite with their machetes.

      I think some of the other countries were a little in over their heads when they started overloading the airport with planes and only when they unloaded the rescue crews did they realize there was no fuel and anymore space to land aircraft. What makes it worse is they have to literally reshuffle around everything to accomidate the U.S. Air Forces C-17's to bring in fuel and heavy lifting cranes.

      I know for a fact they delayed one of the top teams in the world here the Los Angeles County emergency response team, about 12 hours was wasted waiting on the ground before they could get some of the best equipment in the world to deal with collapsed buildings and vital supplies. The entire Orange County response team is also on wait and it is just so painful to see all this equipment that should be in there helping.

      Painful though to watch as some errors are being made and thousands of lives are being lost because of it, the critical 72hr period is what they always tell us.

    4. Re:Proud to be American by riondluz · · Score: 1

      "Painful though to watch as some errors are being made and thousands of lives are being lost because of it, the critical 72hr period is what they always tell us."

      As of midnight last night, no relief of any significance had reached the victims in the city. 48hour on their own.
      News in MSM was of the difficulty of getting past the 'last mile' and the risk to responders' safety.
      I googled: "why no heli drops of food and water into port au prince?"

      Page1 of the results only had 4 links related to airlifts and/or helicopters. I found this formum interesting:
      http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message965870/pg1

      "We did it with the Kurds in Iraq and also in Bosnia so I don't know why it can't be done in Haiti.
      If not "drop" then how about lower by ropes from helicopters and have some troops on the ground to receive and administer?
      Something needs to be done and time is running out quickly.
      Another thing, why are there not buneral pyres to burn the corpses because there is not going to even be room to bury them and the health hazard is tremendous.
      Those are two things I would already be doing if I were in charge."
      Quoting: Bluebird

      Yes.
      1) Airdrop water to ground troops for orderly dispersal to victims.
      2) Dig large fire pits for the corpses, and burn them, asap.
      3) Get medical supplies, trained medics and food in country, after 1) and 2) are well under way.

      Someone noted that airdrops are against the Geneva Convention, while WHO claims that 3-4 days is all they can hold out.

      Anonymous Coward
      User ID: 865986
      1/15/2010 7:47 PM
      Re: WTH??? Why can't they DROP food , water and supplies over Haiti?????? Quote
      The argument that you can't do airdrops because there might be rioting is completely ridiculous. What are you people more concerned about, people rioting or people dying without food and water? Turn on your tv, you saw it today, it's just gonna get worse, if they don't get food and water, it will lead to rioting. So your solution of withholding food and water so the won't riot is not gonna work.
      Let's take a look at Sarejevo, Bosnia in the early 1990's. It was completely cut off, it was the longest city under siege in Europe since the Middle Ages. What did we let them starve? No, we did airdrops. We kept people alive for years with that. They'd drop them in the surrounding hills. Was there a scramble to get the food? Yes, there was. But they'd be dead otherwise.
      These people who say we can't drop them food or they'll riot, that we should just let them die instead, this is the same level of incompetence of George W. Bush and that Brown character he put in charge of Katrina.

      Even some retired general has noted the same thing:
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-15-general-criticizes-response_N.htm
      "The next morning after the earthquake, as a military man of 37 years service, I assumed ... there would be airplanes delivering aid, not troops, but aid," said retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who coordinated military operations after disaster struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. "What we saw instead was discussion about, 'Well we've got to send an assessment team in to see what the needs are.' And anytime I hear that, my head turns red."
      The problem, Honore told USA TODAY, is that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, instead of the military, take the lead in international disaster response.
      "I was a little frustrated to hear that USAID was the lead agency," he said. "I respect them, but they're not a rapid deployment unit."
      USAID immediately dispatched an assessment team and search-and-rescue teams, but there has still not been widespread distribution of food or water, three days after the Haiti earthquake.
      In the first two days after Tuesday evening's quake, "we saw nati

      --
      resist propaganda
    5. Re:Proud to be American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, Haiti wouldn't be such a wasteland before the earthquake if America and the IMF would be sucking them dry, installing puppet governments and dicking around there. So, you can abuse a population for decades and suddenly, helping in an emergency makes you the good boys? And you wonder why the world hates ya all?

      You can circle jerk all you want, some third world countries have sent more money and food than America, Google it.

    6. Re:Proud to be American by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      A lot of this is bad or incomplete information. I know for a fact they are airdropping water from helicopters hovering about 10ft above the ground. How do I know? I saw high def video of it in action. I assume the military is doing the same with food but I have not seen video to prove it. Also, Haiti is not Bosnia or Iraq. Haiti is an island so you can't just route a bunch of big-rigs down there and call it a day. Everything has to come through the one airport or come in via ground through the Dominican Republic which is a constantly blocked with traffic. It takes over 12 hours to get shit from the DR into Haiti. Distribution just adds more time onto that number. As for what Cuba is doing, I know they sent 72 doctors and medical supplies at a minimum. In the end, the Haitians are basically screwed. There's no agency of any kind designed to deal with something like this on this scale -- especially to an island with minimal infrastructure. Whatever help they get, they are very lucky to get but after it's all said and done, all they will be left with is just rubble in addition to the misery they had before the quake.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  20. harnessing emotions by yali · · Score: 1

    It's not just the amount (though that's part of it). Technology is allowing people to give easily at the very moment that they're seized with the urge to help. Used to be you'd have to go find your checkbook, a stamp, look up an address to send to, etc... which requires a sustained intention that lasts longer than the emotional impulse. Now you just text HAITI to 90999 and instantly satisfy your desire to do something. That makes a huge difference in turning noble motivations into action.

  21. As a citizen of a 3rd world country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I would suggest that if you decided to donate money, do it thru Red Cross (which I choose), Unesco or any multinational organizations. Do not give it to embassies of the country, if they have asking for donations too. If you do, chances are that the money will not only not help the desperate people who need it, but will make even richer the usually corrupt local government.

  22. Re:And how many won't give? by XanC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You want to use guns to take money away from people and give it to other people, according to your whims, and that's what you call "fair"?

  23. Text 'haiti' to 90999 by warrior389 · · Score: 1

    Text 'haiti' to 90999

    I can't believe its not in the article or been edited to go in the summary.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/14/cashmore.haiti.earthquake.relief.technology/

    Also this was on Colbert last night

    1. Re:Text 'haiti' to 90999 by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The above information is for U.S. In Canada, "haiti" can be texted to 45678 - that will go through Salvation Army.

    2. Re:Text 'haiti' to 90999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your implied suggestion that The Colbert Report must've had something to do with the sudden surge, yesterday.

      Personally, I do my best to ignore mainstream media, but can't help watching Stewart and Colbert. I think a lot of other people do, too.

  24. Re:Interest Side Note - Trouble Getting Donations by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

    No, you were right, 30 days was for Canadian charities; the 90 day figure was for "some" American ones.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  25. How? by trout007 · · Score: 1

    I agree. Poverty is a due to a mindset of not respecting property. You get out of poverty by working to create things of value (wealth) and having a mentality where you don't steal or destroy wealth. But I have no idea how you can teach that to people. I have the same problem with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. We are smart enough in this country not to let our military run the country and to make our government as weak as possible. But then we want to install a powerful government in these other countries to keep the people under control. I agree with the isolationists. The best thing we can do is mind our own business and lead by example. If people are impressed with us they might try to copy our ways.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  26. Re:Interest Side Note - Trouble Getting Donations by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the way the Red Cross typically works?

    They pay for the current disaster from their general fund, and donations go into the fund for the *next* disaster. That way, when something like this happens they don't have to wait for people to begin contributing before they can spring into action.

    I mean, I can understand your concern, but on the other hand-- if Red Cross had that money in-hand right now, would they be able to do more than they are already doing? I'd wager they're more limited by the inaccessibility of the country than anything relating to cashflow.

  27. You are human as well. by Singularity42 · · Score: 1

    I think you are lying.

  28. Sensible by Singularity42 · · Score: 1

    I hope (not pray--I'm atheist) your family is well. It's clear they were in bad shape before the earthquake.

  29. Re:Interest Side Note - Trouble Getting Donations by deprecated · · Score: 1

    It would make them look good but they aren't going to do it because they don't need to look good. They don't give a rat's ass about anything except next quarter's margin.

  30. Re:And how many won't give? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, generally the guns are saved for when elections don't turn out how the US likes them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uphold_Democracy

  31. C-5 Galaxy can do it, not that you need pavement by r00t · · Score: 1

    You get 9974 feet (3040 meters) of asphalt in Haiti.

    You need 8400 feet (2600 meters) for a C-5B to take off. That fits, and you'll be leaving empty anyway. You can knock 30% off of that if you use a C-5M.

    Landings are even easier. They take only 3600 feet (1100 meters). You could do one on each end of the runway if you dare.

    Finally, remember that this is a military cargo plane. It has lots of giant low-pressure tires. Plain dirt will work as long as you don't mind bulldozing/grading the ruts out of it after every flight.

    BTW, all the other military cargo planes can land on dirt as well, and you can usually skip the bulldozer or grader because they don't dig in as much as the C-5.

  32. you don't understand Haiti by r00t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people didn't have water **before** the quake. The same goes for electrical power. It's only the well-to-do Haitians (probably having relatives in the USA to send money) who are experiencing this for the first time.

    Lots of Haitians normally use the "flying toilet". You poop in an old plastic bag, step outside, and throw it as far as you can. I am not kidding. It's popular in Kenya too.

    There is a reasonable argument that Haiti is better off than a place like post-Katrina New Orleans. No running water? Cool, the house didn't have a sink or toilet anyway!

    1. Re:you don't understand Haiti by afidel · · Score: 1

      They might not have had a sink but I'm pretty sure they had access to running water from some point, it's kind of impossible to have 3.2M people in an area with just near surface wells.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:you don't understand Haiti by r00t · · Score: 2, Informative

      Many people buy water in containers. This can be a sizable chunk of their budget.

      It really is horrible, and always has been. Look:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Haiti

      Note the distinction between "broad definition" and "house connections". The city water situation is 24% house connection, 28% something else, and 48% **nothing** at all. (BTW, elsewhere I get a figure of "less than half" having access to clean drinking water)

      Also note the "mostly intermittent" continuity of supply. Having a house connection doesn't mean you can rely on getting water.

      This is the pre-quake situation. Haiti is like a chunk of sub-saharan Africa transplanted to the Western Hemisphere. You get it all: HIV, half the houses built without title to the land, automatic weapons fired in the streets, no sanitation, a single fire station, corruption from top to bottom, lack of school attendance, extremely young population, half the kids undersized from malnutrition...

      Haitians are dying left and right in the best of times.

  33. can't we just give up? by r00t · · Score: 1

    Suppose your dog is really really sick. It's hopeless. He's not going to get any better, and he's in a lot of pain. What do you do?

    If it's not right to leave a dog suffering like that, how can it be right for a country?

    Depending on how we put Haiti down, we might even get rid of the invasive species and then reboot the ecosystem. It could be a nice place in 100 years.

  34. Re:Interest Side Note - Trouble Getting Donations by centuren · · Score: 1

    A second article states that it usually takes 90 days for the donation to be transferred.

    While the phone companies are looking at how to speed this up, am I the only one who believes that this would be a good way for some banks to earn back some credibility? It seems like they could give the Red Cross a 90 day loan to give them the money today, at 0%. Makes them look really good.

    Forget the loan with 0% interest, how about the banks match the amount, dollar for dollar?

  35. Chart of $ collected vs. time by JeffreyBreen · · Score: 1

    As part of a post about the Haiti SMS campaigns (Red Cross and mGive bring charity Anywhere), I constructed a chart of $ collected over time, based on public announcements on twitter. It's amazing how it just skyrockets. The success of these campaigns may be the "breakthrough moment" which first associates SMS/texting with payments in the U.S. Jeffrey

  36. Re:And how many won't give? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You want to use guns to take money away from people and give it to other people, according to your whims, and that's what you call "fair"?"

    We don't listen to those who are irresponsible members of society who don't care anything about their fellow men and only about themselves, especially when they have more then enough and the so called "stolen money" wouldn't amount to much anyway.

  37. There are no local authorities left in Haiti. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Really, one of the first news is that the Presidential Palace was destroyed.

    For all practical matters it seems like Haiti has stopped having a functioning government (and no, I know that the demise of the Palace would not necessarily imply the collapse of government, but I am using it as a symbol, before you wise asshats point this out...).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  38. Yeah sure. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    But there is a context prior to that.

    When Haiti became independent, the French embargoed the country and eventually managed to wrestle a commitment from the country to pay for their freedom. In my country we call that blackmailing, I don't know how you call it. Haiti was paying that money as late as the middle of last century.

    Then the cleptocrats Duvaliers (father and son, read about them, fucking bastards) ruled the country thanks to their impeccable credentials as anti Communists (guess which country was a good friend?)

    To top things up, Jean Bertrand Aristide, the guy that raised against the tyrants from the slums, was swept away from power when he tried to implement reforms that would have benefited the poorest people in the country. The military junta was eventually recognized by the usual suspects that say to promote democracy and liberte, fraternite et egalite.

    So I will also give my prescription for Haiti: the only way they will ever leave poverty is when France and the US actually decide to support a democratic government there (sometimes it would seem that Haiti will be forever punished for having challenged the idea that black slave could be free, they have paid dearly for their temerity).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.