On Sep 11, 2005, at 11:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Devon) wrote:
One reason for this waffling may have to do with the fact that the
money the
Red Cross raises now may actually be used to replenish their supplies
of
blankets, meals ready to eat, etc. so that they can be ready for the
next
emergency. The meals that people in New Orleans ate during this
emergency were
bought with money from a former emergency.
They don't explain this for the obvious reason that it is easier for
people
to be moved to send money by scenes of suffering and devastation that
actually
exist than to prepare for an specified disaster yet to happen.
Which is why it's by far the best to pick your fvourite charities and
donate to them *regularly*, not in emergency only. Doesn't have to be a
lot, but a regular income allows them to plan better, than a
feast-or-famine attitude.
I actually had $50 returned early this year (by Doctors Without
Borders). I donate twice a year (as much as I feel I can afford to) and
my second donation coincided with the tsunami relief funds people were
sending in. While I did write "for tsunami relief or wherever needed
most", they assumed the money was dedicated to tsunami and sent it back
- "we have more than we need for that, with so many other organisations
also pouring the money in. What we need at the moment is money for
Nigeria and Sudan" - they wrote in the explanatory note. So I sent the
money back, and added another 50 for their honesty, saying "use where
needed the most". And this time they kept it <g>
For picking which charity suits you best (or to check out one which you
think might be a tad suspect), Americans can go to the Better Business
Bureau's "Wise Giving" website:
http://www.give.org/index.asp
Re donating objects instead of money: that works for more-or-less local
efforts. So, if Suz gives a box of toiletries (soap, shampoo,
toothpaste) or toilet paper to the local church and if others in the
same locality do something similiar, the church can get up a truck and
ship it off to the nearest shelter which is taking in refugees. But
shipping the same load to, say Baton Rouge or Houston will create a
logistical nightmare, not to mention a huge waste of money and gas.
Send money, and they'll be able to buy what's most needed more-or-less
locally in the areas which had not been destroyed... Or will be able to
organise one huge shipping, at reduced costs, buying the same stuff at
reduced costs. IMO
--
Tamara P Duvall http://t-n-lace.net/
Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland)
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
