In what way was I playing the race card? When people make uniformed statements like both you and suki have which are tantamount to 'who cares they are rich enough to sort it out themselves' it would seem you both have an axe to grind for reasons best known to yourselves. As I asked before but you either ignored or didn't read was how would either of you really know Japan's financial status since as far as I know you are no way involved with the treasury or whatever it's equivalent is? There was no rational point in suki's point (I take it you were referring to 'go there and help clean up the mess'), which is both illogical and irrational which should be obvious.

Ps: Suki Please learn to understand what I said instead of indirectly accusing me of calling you a racist.

An axe to grind? With Japan?

I really don't consider myself loyal to any country but if I were to pick a country that I felt an emotional connection to, Japan would be one of the few I pick.

I have an axe to grind with how the world works in other ways. The way in which developed countries (The West in particular) f*ck over undeveloped or developing countries etc. and I will admit that sentiment is partly the reason why I feel I have to make this point. But that is a whole other thread I think.

I'm purely being rational and I believe Suki's point was not that you should actually go there and help.. but similar to mine that we should provide Japan with the assistance it NEEDS.

As for Japan's economic situation, I'm no expert I admit. But I'm not completely ignorant either. The post before this explains my opinion with regard to that situation.

You say "Japan" and "Japanese government" has money, and they do.

However the fisherman who lost his house, his boat, and his family does not.

The daughter that lost her home, her school, and half her classmates does not.

The mother that felt her toddler's fingers slip from her fingers as they were separated by the tsunami does not.

I am not talking about giving money to the Japanese government. I am talking about giving money to the international aid and relief workers that are pouring into Japan AS WE SPEAK while we are here so smugly behind our computer screens.

Neither you or Suki addressed the fundamental issue. Yes Japan has money, but do they have what it takes to save their people RIGHT NOW? I gave my answer, and it's the same answer many Japanese living in Japan would give you. Obviously, NO! It's a bureaucratic system, and as I am seeing on the news every hour, doesn't work with the sense of speed needed to save the region.

Part of it is paying it forward. That means I help you now, knowing that when I need help, it will come back around. Japan helped New Zealand when it was struck by an earthquake a few weeks ago. What did New Zealand do? Turn around and help them back. That's good diplomacy and simply being a good neighbor.

No one is forcing either of you to participate in that process, but to call it irrational is absurd.

New Zealand sent search and rescue teams, so did China, Korea, USA, Australia and Britain etc. I'm not against that for the hundredth f*cking time.

And I'm not really referring to donations at a state level but I suppose in the bigger picture my argument applies too (though political realities get in the way).

lol.. IF the Japanese government cannot make money available immediately then fine... send your own money.

Other governments around the world can and do all the time and I'm assuming of course that the Japanese government can too.

Oh.. I'm not calling it irrational. I'm calling my point rational.

Oh.. as for the people being directly affected by the disaster not having money? It's irrelevant in a RELIEF operation.

international response to earthquake in Japan
 

Following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, Japan received messages of condolence and offers of assistance from a range of international leaders. According to Japan's foreign ministry, 113 countries and 24 international organizations had offered assistance to Japan. This article is a list of charitable and humanitarian responses to the disaster from governments and non-governmental organizations.


Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

Cool.. what's your point?

the point
 

I think they were driven by human compassion rather than cold rational thoughts.

First, I don't think they are diametrically opposed concepts.

You can be rational AND driven by human compassion (And I would argue that's what I am)

Second of all.. not really addressing the topic here. I'm talking about our individual donations going to help Japan which is a rich country.

Finally... How do you know rationale didn't play a part? Most countries sent assistance in the form of rescue teams and materials. Not financial assistance.

As I have said over and over.. I am not opposed to this kind of assistance

rationale form
 

Yes, you are right.

new poster here...hi everybody!

My thoughts on the crisis at hand

Purely a case of philanthropics...

Treat others they way you would like to be treated.

Ronin, clearly you want to be understood and want attention, right?

Of course you have your mind set, so why don't you just donate your money to Haiti causes and stop annoying people not to give monetary contributions to Japan.

Simple enough.

Ronin, The US citizens gave Haiti 1.5 billion in private donations with in the first year of the earth quake. Haiti still has no functioning government , no civil service to speak of, no real plan for recovery, a massive cholera epidemic because they haven't fixed the water...Where did all that money go?

The US citizen has given plenty to Haiti but has nothing to show for it.

The US citizen has only given 45 to 60 million in private aid to Japan thus far so your off base a little here.

In four days, US citizens (not government) gave 150 million to Haiti post earthquake.

In four days US citizens (not government) gave 35 million to Japan.

I think this is because people DO see Haiti as a more needy country, and over all it is. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of hurt and suffering in Japan, and that our help, whether it be blankets, workers, money to buy food, whatever doesn't help.

My argument is purely rational.

If that is the case then it might be a possibility that many Americans share that same rationale so I don't think I'm off base (@Ryozorian). In fact it seems you might be if we are going to use stats to give credibility to our rationale (which I don't believe in)

Also Haiti was just an example of a country that NEEDS financial assistance.

But come to think of it that's 35 million dollars that could have gone to a country that actually needed it.

Money doesn't help country's just because they "need it". With out any viable infrastructure alot of that money just goes to gangs and pirates or corrupt officials. It never goes to actually help anyone or rebuild anything.

That's why Japan would be a better place to send it because they can utilize it efficiently without it being lost to who knows where.

The CEO of JP Morgan has just donated $7,000,000 to help Japan, and I am donating 10% of my income for the next year to the Red Cross in Japan. Hopefully more people will do the same.

Ronin, how much money exactly have you personally donated to Haiti? I spent nearly 6 months there immunizing children and helping to set up clean water and sanitation facilities. Of course within months the equipment was stolen, so the effort and expense was meaningless.

Ronin, instead of telling us what we should do, tell us what you in fact have done. If you've nothing (which I strongly suspect), then you should shut up. People who don't follow their own advice have no right to give it. If you have donated money to Haiti, then I'll apologize.

lol Sangetsu... You want to get into a dick measuring contest over how much we've given?

You win...

I gave to the Red Cross when Haiti hit (can't remember how much).

I'm also a regular donater to UNICEF.

What's your point though?

That's a whole other discussion.

You are very good at pushing people away from agreeing with you. I have seen it happen on this thread alone. How many times have you felt the need to say your argument is purely rational.

I understand the rationality of helping Haiti. No one would disagree. However, Haiti doesn't need financial assistance. It needs ORGANIZED and TRUSTWORTHY financial assistance. With the money the world has put into Haiti, they should be living large. They aren't. You have the problem of diminishing returns. Is it better to put money in a safe, or a furnace. Maybe the furnace needs it more, but what is the furnace going to do with it?

Regardless of Haiti's needs, your argument that Japan "doesn't need the money" falls flat, as ANY country that experiences a disaster requires money to get rescue and relief efforts on the move. You still don't seem able to accept that much of that money doesn't go into the pockets of people without homes, but goes into buying food, water, supplies, airplane fuel, etc. to get relief workers from all over the world into the disaster zone. I am repeating arguments that you don't seem to want to respond to, so I am stopping here.

Not really. Haiti needs money LESS than Japan because the % of that money being used to help people in need is reduced. Send the money to Japan and the relief workers to Haiti makes more sense. Not the other way around.

Haiti does not need financial assistance. Haiti is a tropical country with a year- round growing season, and it is populated by people who ave the physical ability to grow and build if they set their minds to it. Haiti could be as much a tropical paradise as other Caribean islands, a destination for tourists and nature lovers.

Instead, Haiti's fantastic level of corruption has made the island a wasteland. The people are largely illiterate, there is no industry, nearly no police, no public works worthy of the name, and running a business is next to impossible as gangs or corrupt officials steal most of what you make, and if there is anything left over after they take their cut, you are likely to be murdered in the street for what's left.

Haitian tradition say that the leaders of the rebellion that killed the slave owners and gave Haiti to the slaves made a deal with Satan to insure their victory. And with Satan being what he is, he gave them their victory, but at the cost of Haiti always being a living hell.

I'm glad you're stopping because I will say it again. Ironic that you are accusing me of repeating myself because you just seem to be rewording the exact same point over and over again.

I am not against giving Japan the things it NEEDS. But money, in particular MY money, isn't one of them.

Furthermore Haiti was just an example of a country that needs MONEY more than Japan (In that it doesn't have the money to fund any sort of relief).

I've said this before too.

Forget Haiti if you want.. choose a country that is poor that is facing a Humanitarian crisis and substitute it for that.

As I've already said...

Forget Haiti then.. It was only an example of a poor country that needed money.

My point is that Japan doesn't need money.

Oh.. and Haiti needs both relief workers AND money. It's not a one or the other type thing.

But you would expect the world's third largest economy to at least fund it's own relief effort (which I'm sure they're doing)

LOL.. It's Satan's fault.

Anyway.. see above.

You are right, Japan doesn't need your money. The amount of caveats attached put your contribution in the red.

I don't need to substitute any other country. That's your job. I am going back to working on Japan.

My point was obvious enough, wasn't it?

BTW, UNICEF's overhead costs amount to about 60% of donations received, meaning that most of your donations are going to pay bureaucracy rather than help people. UNICEF doctors in Africa and Haiti receive almost no pay, but UNICEF's directors and contractors are living quite well...

lol.. sore loser.

I believe the Red Cross is 9% and MercyCorps is 12%.

Which reminds me, for anyone in Portland, OR, there will be a candlelight vigil in Pioneer Square tomorrow from 6 to 8 pm. Donations accepted will go to MercyCorps to help those in need in Japan. Hope to see you there.

Hardly sore or losing, unlike our friends in Japan. That's why I am doing what I can from here.

Maybe this is a pissing contest to you, but to me it is something more important.

Your point was.. "My charity dick is bigger than your charity dick". It's true. I don't dispute that.

Regarding UNICEF.. If that's the case then that sucks.

But it has nothing to do with the point I'm making in this thread.

You just can't handle the fact that you haven't been able to rationally counter my point and are getting all snarky about it.

Help Japan definitely. I would encourage people to do this. Not by giving money but by giving Japan the things it needs.

Heck... give money to Japan if you want. It's misplaced charity in my opinion but I will never say the feeling which motivates people to give is bad.

You just want to make it out like I'm like that because you can't handle what I'm saying.

Maybe a part of you agrees with me and feels guilty... or maybe you just don't like me.

Whatever.

Wrong on all counts, but I don't feel any need to waste any more time on this any longer.

:ywave: :ywave: :ywave:

sorta not
 

No, dude. The CEO of JP Morgan* is not actually donating $7,000,000 except in your fantasy?

As reported by NYT, WSJ etc. media, CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase made the announcement JP Morgan Chase would commit $5 (USD) million.

This donation includes the following components:

•$1.1 million, which has been already* been pledged by JPMorgan Chase Japan.
•$1 million to match contributions to The American Red Cross and World Vision by the bank’s more than 220,000 employees, including more than 1,300 in Japan.

So I suppose we just rob someone for the things they need and send it to them?

Most of the "things" Japan need has a monetary value, food, blankets, medication... tell me one thing that is not associated with a monetary value.

Money doesn't go there and become cash in hand to the Japanese Government or its citizen. It is used to help fund whatever relief effort that is happening there now. I can volunteer to go there, but I will still need to fly there , I will need to a place to stay, to be fed. Even if I fund myself to do all that, the people there will have need that can only be satisfy with money.

The fact that we see people going in and helping already indicate that its not MISPLACED. If money goes to a charity organization, and they organization never show up to help, then its misplaced. Again, the effort itself, the material, all cost money...

Actually, I have a memo from the Tokyo office of JP Morgan showing the breakdown, as well as a letter from Jamie Dimon himself. Also included are a few notes on the effect of the nuclear reactor crisis, and a little economic data from the analyst's offices. Math was not my greatest subject, but the numbers I have add up to $7 million.

You keep saying this, but it makes zero sense. Japan needs water, blankets, food, fuel, child-care produces, medicine etc and you say you're fine with people donating those, anything in fact, except money.

I have plenty of all of that, but I have no logistical way of getting it to the people who need it in the disaster areas, and certainly no way to get it there quickly enough to be of real use. I live in a rural area; there's no collection point here. It would be ridiculous and impractical for me to pack a suit-case and go out there to help- I have no training, i'd just be a burden to the relief effort.

By donating to the Red Cross however, my money can leap in an instant to a place where EVERYTHING the people need can be purchased at source, in bulk, given to trained professionals to distribute and make a real difference TODAY. I have, in effect, donated baby milk and blankets, I just haven't had the chance to handle them personally. I've helped feed the private volunteer teams and keep them well equipped, so they can enter an area full of struggling survivors and yet not put more pressure on limited resources just by being there, and I've helped maintain producers nearer the area in an arguable tough economic patch- not every business can afford (even if they want to) to give everything away for free. And I've bought whatever was actually needed -most- at the time; not just whatever I guessed from a long list of items required. I may have bought a coffin, or a body bag. Or something else I could never get hold of myself like dialysis tubes or would never have otherwise thought of.

The government of any country can't donate to the Red Cross; almost all it's revenue comes from private donation, and the Red Cross by policy doesn't invoice for it's help- it would be unethical for it to bill Japan for aid when it has to date never been -paid- to help any country. That's the point of them; they help everyone, regardless of colour, creed, history or bank balance.

You may consider it wasted money, and wasted charity, but the money WILL make a difference and making relief efforts easier (even if they according to you are already well-funded and therefore easy in that respect) can hardly be a bad thing in my opinion, and for many people around the world, the only alternative is quite simply to do nothing.

That's no alternative at all.

again sorta not
 

Dude, the Red Cross gets government money and lots of it. Even in 2008' the US government poured $ 100 million into ARC. The Red Cross by it's legal definition is a 'instrument' of the government.

The Red Cross gets federal & state grants and the Red Cross can also purchase supplies from the military and use government facilities--military personnel can actually be assigned to duty with the Red Cross.

The leading administrators and officials of the ( ARC ) Red Cross are almost always drawn from the corporate boardroom or the military high command. Among the past chairs and presidents of the Red Cross are seven former generals or admirals and one ex-president.

As Richard Walden, of Operation USA, wrote in the Los Angeles Times,
In other and past disasters "FEMA and the affected states had reimbursed the Red Cross under pre-existing* contracts for emergency shelter and other disaster services.

i never donated any of my money to new zealand and i am no longer a new zealand citizen for few years. i find it pointless to donate my money to an economic havoc.

i however donated money to japan and i never regret my decision. japan is under a huge debt waiting to explode and it is worth a donation.

this is called charity and this is love to the fellow friends.

Really? I did not know that was the case in America. British Red Cross isn't; it's recognized as one of the three Voluntary Aid Services, but it's not a government faculty in it's own right, and none of the current heads of management have any background in government or military.

again sorta
 

The UK Red Cross, as with all IFRC member societies, operate first and foremost an Emergency Response service, which supports the statutory and governmental* Emergency services in times of crisis, in accordance with the duty of Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies to be auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments*.

Dude, check it out*

Hello Ronin,
Thank You very much for helping me decide to donate small amount of money i can afford to japanese people
all the best