DarrenBarefoot.com

I do as well *applause*

[Reply]

I’m not giving to Hurricane Katrina victims because, in my opinion, the worst day in the life of the person most negatively affected by Katrina is still probably somewhat better than the best days of the lives of people in places like the Sudan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka.

While I am sympathetic to their situation, I simply feel that my limited funds for donations can make a bigger difference elsewhere in the world.

[Reply]

The Web is a collection of the things that we care about. We add to it by linking. In other words, by adding a simple link, you are showing that you care about something (i.e technology, sports, world events, whatever).

I understand where everyone is coming from here because everyone has their own charities and can’t donate to everything but give me a break. You don’t have to chop off an arm or empty your bank account, all you have to do is put one link to the Red Cross or even to a news event relating to the disaster to show that it matters to you and you care about it.

John Oxton (joshuaink.com) said he didn’t want to put up a token banner for the disaster on his site but at least he talked about it and explained his feelings of frustration and helplessness about it. More than I can say about a hell of a lot of other sites I’ve visited. Most of them didn’t even say a single word about the event (and they were mainly American sites too). You can say all you want about not donating but if you don’t say anything at all then you’re pretty disconnected from the world and quite uncaring about it as well. Sad to say especially when everyone talks about this “blogosphere” and being “connected”. Well “being connected” electronically is not the same thing as “feeling connected” with others.

BTW yes I’m Canadian and I did donate. Not much though, but it was all I could afford.

[Reply]

I find it much more affordable to donate my time, rather than my money. Money is great, but somebody has to do something with it!

Of course, I’m not close enough to NOLA to do anything there. So, I do the local thing. Works well for me, and gives me a much more long-lasting altruistic feeling that gets renewed each week. :)

[Reply]

Yes, I agree completely. This reactive giving is wonderful, but it whips people up into a giving frenzy, and completely overlooks the charity work done for people who struggle every day and not just in the face of a huge disaster. At my work a hat was passed around for the Tsunami victims and for the Hurricane Katrina victims and I did give to both…but what I disagree with is that there is no hat for those in Dafur, or even anything for local charities. It is all completely reactive, and while I guess any giving is better than no giving at all, I applaud your posting this here. Perhapys more people will be inspired to give year-round.

[Reply]

Just wondering:
I refuse to donate to UGM because I won’t support a bunch of dope-heads, does this make me brave and worthy of applause?

[Reply]

A few thoughts

We all say “limited funds” and “meager donations” but giving what we can is really all that matters. If it is all that we can, than there is nothing meager about it, if it is limited, than it is limited, so are we.

I’m not sure how I feel about reactive giving. Or showy giving Oprah style. I am part of the “rubber wristband” craze because I lost someone close to me from cancer and it is a tangible reminder of that. That is reactionary, and yet it is meaningful. I think it is important to continue our charitable support to counteract the ongoing suffering in places such as Ethiopa or Sudan, but in times like this it can be important to give reactionally over and above those charities we normally sustain, because this is an extraordinary event. And that is meaningful in itself.

[Reply]

Let’s suppose the Big One hits Vancouver this winter.

Richmond’s sunk into the silt, Bridges spanning the Fraser have been taken out. Your water reservoirs are either destroyed or made useless through contamination. Basically all of the infrastructure supporting your city is gone. Monsoon season has set in, making everything nice and pleasant for you while you sit in the ruins of your collapsed/burned/flooded home.

Do you think you’d want someone to be observing on a blog that help will get there in 4 weeks anyway so don’t bother donating?

At least down on the Gulf all the healthy people with means got away, leaving only the truly needy behind.

Ie the poor, elderly, and disabled

Somehow I think they’d appreciate some help in the midst of 150 billion dollars worth of destruction…

Here’s my list of regular charities: Shriner’s Hospitals, United Way, the Spina Bifida Association of BC, and the Hospice House in town.

No, I don’t think my family can really budget for it ( we just bought a car- hey look, I’ve got an out!)) but I think I can throw 200 bucks on my Visa to help out the Red Cross deliver some more food and water. I’ll do it just to bring up the average amongst the readers here. To be honest I hadn’t thought about it until I read some of the views here.

And, in case you’re wondering, I think the American government did a job on their own people by sucking all of their resources into the abyss of Iraq. But it’s no excuse not to give.

Thanks for letting me ramble and be reactionary…

PS feel free to make additional donations to Darfur or Afghanistan instead of a gulf state. Unless you consider what the Canadian government is contributing over there in aid to be adequate…

[Reply]

> the worst day in the life of the person most negatively affected by Katrina is still probably somewhat better than the best days of the lives of people in places like the Sudan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka.

That’s an interesting comparison, because more than one reporter actually there said it was worse than 3rd world nations that they had been in where disasters and wars (same thing) had happened.

[Reply]

Stephen: If you ask me, my blog is a pretty personal place. That photo at the top of the page…that’s me. As such, it’s a very natural spot to discuss my ideas or philosophies.

To get pedantic, I believe we’re using different definitions of the term ‘personal’. You mean “relating to somebody’s private life”, while I mean “done by one individual only” or “believed by individual person”. Should I have said ‘each individual’s decision’? Maybe, though charity certainly can be a private decision, so ‘personal’ is probably le mot juste.

Regardless, is a difference of semantics the only reason you’re calling me a fool, or do you have something else to offer?

[Reply]

There are people facing dire situations every day, both here in Vancouver and elsewhere. When an unexpected disaster hits, like the tsunami or the Katrina flooding, charities who attempt to alleviate everyday suffering in the world sometimes find there is a drop in their donations because suddenly everyone is responding to the latest problem.

Diversity is needed in charity. No one is able to donate money and/or time to every cause. While I know the people affected by Katrina would be happy to benefit from our donations, I’m sure our local homeless and poor would also appreciate the help, as would the starving in Darfur and those devastated by the tsunami last December.

[Reply]

Josh: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. It’s a busy day, so I’ll try to keep this brief.

“demonstrably false that many people are not getting the help they need”

Then please demonstrate this. It’s my impression from the media that, say, 95% of displaced citizens now have food, water, shelter and medical attention. That is, they’re now receiving more aid than, say, the average citizen of the Sudan.

I did a quick search, but was unable to find an actual percentage (this site looked promising, but was of little actual help). There is a small percentage left to be recovered or rescued, but, as I understand it, the vast majority is being taken care of.

“am [sic] implied causal connection between “donating to Katrina” and “not donating to other more worthwhile charities” (c.f Darfur)”

First off, we’d need to go talk to some charities, and find out how the Tsunami aid campaign affected them.

For me, there is a very causal relationship. I have x dollars a year to give. If I give to Katrina-related agencies, then I’m not going to give that money to a charity which I usually support. Why is my total charitable amount fixed (or, rather, linked to my annual revenue)? Because that’s convenient for me and a fact of how I manage my personal finances.

More importantly, there are crises of all sorts all over the planet every year. I could, I suppose, become an entirely reactive donor, distributing that money to whatever the current crisis was. However, as I’ve said, charity is personal. I’m not going to let the media or acts of God choose for me. If everyone was a reactive donor, there’d be lots of long view organizations (such as the David Suzuki Foundation) which would go penniless.

“It seems to me that your reason for not giving is more “Anti-American Government Polemic” than “I’m not giving becuase of some other valid reason”.”

You’re the second commenter to put that philosophy in my mouth. Can you support your allegation? What evidence have you got to back up that position?

“Heck, how about Darfur? Let’s say that “In the next four weeks, every Sudanese citizen will get the help they need.” Despite the ongoing crisis, would this be reason enough for you to not donate to this cause? Once a situation no longer appear hopeless, once there is light at the end of the tunnel, is that when it becomes okay to not give because someone else is taking care of the problem?”

Clearly, I’m not concerned with short-term giving. Why else would I give to the same set of charities year after year?

There’s a logical problem in your example. The US is probably the best-equipped nation on the planet to assist its citizenry in the long term. The Sudan is among the least. As I’ve indicated, I’ve chosen four weeks more or less at random. Make it 12 weeks if you like. The point is that, after the immediate crisis has passed, American citizens:

* Will receive extensive longer term aid from all levels of government
* Will have an opportuntity to seek gainful employment (there are job fairs already occuring in the southern states)
* Will be able to apply for insurance pay-outs
* Have a rich network of non-profit organizations to draw upon
* Can depend on relatives in unafflicted areas

Those are just a few of the many support mechanisms in place for Katrina victims in the medium to long term.

In the Sudan? Even with four or twelve or twenty weeks of aid, they face:

* Risk of slaughter by warring factions
* Disease
* No opportuntity for advancement or employment
* Few to no agencies to rely upon for aid.

Katrina victims have great odds, in terms of eventually returning to a life like the one they were leading before the disaster. In the Sudan, once your magic aid leaves, they’re back to starvation, illness and death.

In the States, I expect that government, economics and opportunity will take care of the problem, and the demand for aid will tail off over the next (and I’m just guessing here) six months. In Darfur, nothing would change.

[Reply]

Ali: Have you checked out this site’s URL? If you’re not interested in what I think, this is the last site you want to visit. There are plenty of other sites in the links off the front page. They’re sites I like, though, so they may not appeal to you.

Feel free to call me egotistical, but I take offense at your implication that I’m uncharitable. I’ve supported a lot of causes on and off this site.

Now, do you have anything cogent to add to this debate, or are you happy to take juvenile potshots?

[Reply]

Ali’s response hints at a lot of what I had wanted to say, but it’s more concise.

“demonstrably false that many people are not getting the help they need”

Then please demonstrate this. It’s my impression from the media that, say, 95% of displaced citizens now have food, water, shelter and medical attention

Perhaps I was overzealous, and did not qualify my statement when I wrote this. Indeed, I think it is fairly well-known fact that the bulk of those people who are most in need, those who still remain in the city out of neglect - those who have been failed by the system up until now are by virtue of their existance not getting the help they need. However, is 95% “good enough”? Somehow, I think not.

There’s a logical problem in your example. The US is probably the best-equipped nation on the planet to assist its citizenry in the long term.
{…}
Those are just a few of the many support mechanisms in place for Katrina victims in the medium to long term.

This is all well and good, but overly idealistic. The USA is far from a utopia when issues of race, economics, and class are concerned. The fact that this disaster is ongoing in the southeast Atlantic Coast, long a hotbed of racial and economic tension and divisiveness, only amplifies this. I do not mean to be blunt, but sometimes one must be, and this is one of those times. The hardest-hit, most-afflicted victims of this disaster are poor, black citizens of New Orleans who could not afford to leave the city. Do the well-to-do WASPs who drove out of the city days in advance to stay with relatives elsewhere need a helping hand? Of course they do. Yes, they will recover, probably, in the long term.

These are not the people who need charity the most though. The people in NO who need help the most are the homeless, the economically disadvantaged, and those who were already falling through the cracks before this disaster, and have now fallen a little further down. The history of poverty in America is of course long and storied, and while there are far worse tragedies ocurring every day, it is naive and insensitive to suggest that the problem should be brushed aside becuase it is in the USA’s power to correct it. It is in the USA’s power to do many things, but the proof is in the pudding, and is a matter of priority.

In all likelihood, the most disadvantaged will not have a home to go to in a year, will not be saved by the market economy, or any of those things - because they sure weren’t engaged with the rest of society in that way before.

To suggest otherwise, I think, is a mark of ignoring the problem in the hopes it will go away. It won’t. I cannot help but recall the incredibly insensitive remarks of Barbara Bush earlier on in the week, when asked for comments on precisely this issue.

“It seems to me that your reason for not giving is more “Anti-American Government Polemic” than “I’m not giving becuase of some other valid reason”.”

You’re the second commenter to put that philosophy in my mouth. Can you support your allegation? What evidence have you got to back up that position?

No, you got me on this one. I cannot substantiate this, and it is entirely a matter of opinion, and really shouldn’t weight into more substantive elements of discussion.

[Reply]

Josh:However, is 95% “good enough”? Somehow, I think not.

Remember that 95% rate is improving, and will no doubt reach 100% in the next couple of weeks.

So, not being an expert in disaster recovery, I couldn’t say whether 95% after a week is good, bad or average. Speaking anecdotally, I think the government (at sundry levels) has failed to respond quickly enough to this crisis.

My point: in a couple of weeks, every American who wants aid will have it. In the weeks and months following that, everyone who wants further assistance should get it.

In all likelihood, the most disadvantaged will not have a home to go to in a year, will not be saved by the market economy, or any of those things - because they sure weren’t engaged with the rest of society in that way before.

A year from now, the worst off, homeless, displaced American will still better off than the average Sudanese. If we’re basing charity strictly on need (which seems to be your line of argument–I may be wrong), then there are far more desperate regions than the American south (today, a week ago or a year in the future).

To suggest otherwise, I think, is a mark of ignoring the problem in the hopes it will go away. It won’t.

People have been ignoring African for, what, 100 years? That problem hasn’t gone away either. In terms of human suffering (another, I think, hallmark of your approach), it dwarves Katrina.

I’m not sure I entirely understand your point, Josh. I’ve guessed at it here (that charity should be based on need and easing the worst human suffering), but could you restate it?

[Reply]

I wrote a similar sort of muse shortly after the tsunami in the New Year. My reaction was certainly not anti-anything, and I’m still on the same page regarding Katrina.

I noted about the vast mobilization of resources after 9/11, the tsunami - and now Hurricane Katrina. Mass murder begets more charity than serial murder, I think: maybe there’s the feeling that we can DO something about a sudden crisis, whereas ongoing crises turn into background buzzing. To me, crisis just adds more people to the not-very-elite club of the planet’s deeply suffering; but I have to agree with Darren - those in Darfur aren’t going to have the same resources as those in the States. They also, as individual people, don’t have the same access to the media - so it’s a throbbing mass of pain, rather than pain-with-a-name. (Although, with work, you can find individual stories from Darfur, too.)

I do have awareness that those worst affected in the States don’t have access to the best resources… and herein lies the strength of the do-something panic in a lot of people. The shock of Katrina certainly has hit all sorts of chords underlying the American economic and political system - in an already polarized society. I think there’s more than a humanitarian crisis here - there’s a political crisis. I imagine that’s a big reason why what you’ve said is ’shocking’, and why you prefaced it as such; because the relief is so politicized, it might seem that you’re choosing an American political position. On the other hand, very few people in North America are affected by the politics of Darfur.

No one had a problem with my reaction to the Tsunami, and I mentioned it in a number of forums.

Anyway, my heart really goes to all of those suffering in the south right now, but my money continues to go to my regular charities. As with the Tsunami, I may donate a little more since it’s my suspicion that the international charities I support probably get a little less when these sorts of things happen. Maybe I’ll re-do.

[Reply]

btw Ali, this is Darren’s blog..we’re here to read his views so its really stupid to complain that you have to read them.

[Reply]

Darren,

I respect your donation decision, but to those who say that after 4 / 12 / 100 weeks, all will be OK in the U.S. that view is more than a little Pollyannish.

Even 10 years after Hurricane Andrew hit, the economic and social effects are still being felt. The dead don’t rise, houses don’t rebuild, lost wages don’t re-appear and when was the last time your insurance covered all your losses?

So, if don’t donate to the Red Cross in the name of immediate food and water, do something more long-term. Donate to the Louisiana branch of the Sierra Club, or to the Family Planning centers that need to rebuild. Or even to the suicide prevention lines in Texas and Florida, where families may still be dealing with grief, poverty and loss issues years from now.

[Reply]

Travis

Instead of begging, write to your congressman and demand your government to take of these poor people. Instead of ridiculously pursuing world domination and oil profiteering, your government should focus on Americans.

You let the guy in, you pay the price. And I am very sorry life isn’t fair. Next time, elect someone who puts more values to the life of people than oil barrels from the Middle East.

[Reply]