I agree. I think the big takeaway I've gathered after reading up on this issue is that when I donate from now on I'll go with: 1. Blood drive - Hard for that to go wrong. I've got the sweet, drug-and-AIDS-free, wholesome good red stuff. 2. Money - Much better bang for buck. 3. Clothing - At least it's non-perishable, and at worst it goes to a Salvation Army-type place where it can be sold for value. 4. Food - I think there's still a great place for it. It makes you feel good to give a physical item, and even if it's poorly allocated and not the best bang for your donated buck, it makes you likely to talk to others and encourage them to get involved. Which is always good. I've volunteered in the past for the Idaho Food Bank, and I've seen firsthand how a couple boxes of donuts can brighten people's days. (See? Just patting myself on the back there to stroke my own ego maybe encourages somebody else to give it a try.)
how dare you talk about volunteering!?! This is a message board, not a confessional! My food bank experience was that we had recipe books made up by some of the ladies in the church for "irregular" items (one I recall is a casserole that uses navy beans, black-eyed peas and tuna), but that normally people gave the "normal" stuff that they had in their cupboards. We had one Somalian single-mom family that was a semi-regular that we would use money from the deacons' fund to get halal (sp?) and kosher (which the daughter said was just as good) food for (Not a lot of halal/kosher experience in our Presbyterian church), but on the whole we didn't need to use a lot of cash to supplement what was donated. Turkeys and game hens at the holidays, formula for families with infants, but that's about it. We worked with a CSA for veggies and fruit.
I'd add that I can see why Denny is dubious about donating money to the Red Cross. That snopes article does raise some good points about their track record of hording money. I'd never donate to the United Way--those guys are just middlemen sucking up funds that they distribute to real organizations. Why give them a share when you can go straight to the source? Most of my donations happen locally, at my kid's school, local food bank, etc. Also Doctors Without Borders. I might make a cash donation to the New Jersey Food Bank or other locally impacted organizations. That seems like the most effective way to get resources to people who need it.
I think he was doing the most he could. I don't think Maddow wants to talk about this: http://global.christianpost.com/new...s-encourages-supporters-to-follow-suit-84252/
I'm not dubious about donating money to the Red Cross or other organizations. They claim to always be in need of money and canned goods and so on. It's just when there's a big event like this, they can raise a lot of money and spread it around across causes that don't get so much press. my point is that if you think you're helping people who are stuck in the remains of their homes, with no power and heat, in the cold weather, cash may not be making its way there at all. When some family has their house burned down in Idaho next month, your donation may help those people.
Send cash! http://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/#!/...y-Starved-New-Yorkers-Dumpster-Dive/176839571 (Or park that truck full of stuff Romney collected right next to that dumpster and let the people take what they need?)
Make of this what you will. http://politicker.com/2012/11/staten-island-borough-president-dont-give-money-to-the-red-cross/ Staten Island Borough President: Don’t Give Money to the Red Cross At a press conference this morning on Staten Island, a host of local officials, including Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, gathered to highlight the needs of the hard-hit borough in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. And, although many pols spoke, no one was more impassioned than Borough President James Molinaro, who called the Red Cross an “absolute disgrace” and even urged the public to cease giving them contributions.
Not taking anything away from Romney's effort, but from your link. I'm sure that is EXACTLY what Maddow wants to talk about.
http://foresthills.patch.com/articles/coats-canned-goods-volunteers-needed-in-queens Coats, Canned Goods, Volunteers Needed in Queens
maybe this will clarify things some: http://www.centex.redcross.org/gene...CTA=1&SN=14324&OP=14463&IDCapitulo=f9zlznz3kd The Red Cross is unable to accept small, individual donations or collections of items such as clothing, food or cleaning supplies. (small being the most important word in that sentence) It then goes on to read: If you are interested in donating a large, palletized quantity of non-perishable food, water or supplies, please contact Jessica Levine at (512) 929-1227. These types of donations are evaluated on a case by case basis. To see a list of specific items we need, please view our Wish List .
What does "collection of donations" or "impedes the valuable resources of money, time, and personnel" mean to you?
It means if 2000 people drive up to a Red Cross facility with bags of canned goods, it's not good for them. I also found this: http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...-effort-in-Ohio-for-victims-of-hurricane.html The campaign asked for nonperishable donations despite the fact that the Red Cross does not typically accept or solicit individual donations or collections of items because of the extra labor involved with sorting, cleaning, repackaging and transporting such items. Chris Maloney, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, said the campaign was aware of that, but had reached out and found out that the South Jersey of the American Red Cross was accepting donations. He said that Romney’s victory centers across the state were also accepting donations. “Whatever the Red Cross is willing to accept we’ll be shipping to them,” he said. “At this point, they’re not willing to put a limit on what they’re willing to accept.”
"Visits" by Presidents are time taken away from their ability to actually deal with the emergency at hand, by directing responses and signing orders. Visits by political candidates are a self-serving distraction that leeches badly needed government officials away from their response to the emergency, exacerbates traffic and communication lines, and slows critical media information to the public.
Well, again I was never saying Romney's camp did any wrong. I was just saying that the quote in your own link stated that they did not accept or solicit this type of donation because it is an extra burden on their limited number of volunteers. If they spoke with the Red Cross ahead of time to set this up, then good for them.
From what I see, the kinds of things people donate at these drives are exactly what is needed, and ASAP, in many places devastated by the storm. At some point, trucks will get through to the grocery stores with all the stuff people normally buy. But if the stores don't have power, they can't accept credit cards for payment.
I think Romney did not want to politicize Sandy, and so he decided to turn the rally into something positive to support the victims. That is commendable. Most likely his camp then made the decision to collect cans, and that was perhaps not the best move, but not something they should be hammered about. There was not a ton of time to organize and I have no insight to suggest their motives were devious. If I were to take an issue at all with anything having to do with the Romney Sandy-support rally, it would be them showing a vote for Romney video at the event. But, once again I say that with such little time to organize and no overt politicizing, I give Mitt a complete pass on this.
I don't give a shit what the reason is for people doing something charitable. The fact is they did it. Good for them. The fact that MSNBC had to find an excuse to criticize speaks volumes about their desperation.
Notice that "we need cash" is missing. Video at link. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-residents-plead-for-help-3-days-after-sandy/ "Where is the government? Where is FEMA?"
