1 Million? Seriously?

[kombayn]

I made respectable donations to Haiti.

I just wish that they would update us on how donation money has been used. After global billions of US $ in donation i want to see what difference we made, cuz the place still seems unchanged even after injection of so much money.At least send me a picture of a new home built with my name on it, or a acknowledgement htat my money was for medical supplies to save a person's life or something. If they used the mony to buy expensive useless teddy bears or some other non discriontary purchases that were looted the next day, I would be angry.

Dude they're one of the poorest countries in the world. All the millions we donated won't turn them into a wealthy society and the rebuilding is going to take at least 3 decades. Easily.

[St.Nick]

I donated, but Haiti is done for. It was practically non-functioning even before this catastrophe.

[Icestorm959]

American organizations are a reflection of the American government when it comes to international donations; damn stingy.

Tsunami example:

the U.S donated 902 million dollars, with an annual GDP of 14.2 trillion.
Australia donated 431 million dollars, with an annual GDP of 1.02 trillion.

The US should have donated at least 6 billion dollars to the effort. And don't say they didn't have that much money, they wasted many times that amount that on ill-planned and ill-implemented bailouts just last year.


Of course, while the U.S is bad, China is an absolute disgrace. Third largest economy in the world, Government is rich beyond measure, and only donated 63 billion to the tsunami effort, not to mention the paltry donation for Haiti. They take the cake in being cheap.

[HMFFL]

http://my.lakers.com/blogs/2010/01/22/gasol-donating-1000-per-point-tonight/

How much did that raise?

Derrick Rose, Danilo Gallinari, Pau Gasol, Antawn Jamison, Tyreke Evans, Russell Westbrook among others.

Joe Johnson had 19 points, so $19k, but he went 0-5 with the 3 ball. I can only assume he was thinking about making those 3-pointers so the money would add up, because one hit all glass to the right of the rim, and on another all he hit was the side of the glass. It was ugly!

[Flash3]

I donated, but Haiti is done for. It was practically non-functioning even before this catastrophe.

Sad to say, but it's true. It was struggling mightily before, and after this catastrophe where do they start to start over again?

[KeithMoonsLiver]

Half of your donations will go to corporations and corrupt governments- just like many of the donations for the tsunami a few years ago. Good job for financing terrorism.

[6_Rings]

American organizations are a reflection of the American government when it comes to international donations; damn stingy.

Tsunami example:

the U.S donated 902 million dollars, with an annual GDP of 14.2 trillion.
Australia donated 431 million dollars, with an annual GDP of 1.02 trillion.

The US should have donated at least 6 billion dollars to the effort. And don't say they didn't have that much money, they wasted many times that amount that on ill-planned and ill-implemented bailouts just last year.


Of course, while the U.S is bad, China is an absolute disgrace. Third largest economy in the world, Government is rich beyond measure, and only donated 63 billion to the tsunami effort, not to mention the paltry donation for Haiti. They take the cake in being cheap.

they still have to balance the books at the end of the day. and if it doesn't balance they'll charge the taxpayer for it. it's not easy as it may seem.

besides i'd rather accept charity that was wholeheartedly given than grudgingly.

at least the givers are not indifferent.

The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not the hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That's the essence of inhumanity.
-- George Bernard Shaw

[Manocad]

American organizations are a reflection of the American government when it comes to international donations; damn stingy.

Tsunami example:

the U.S donated 902 million dollars, with an annual GDP of 14.2 trillion.
Australia donated 431 million dollars, with an annual GDP of 1.02 trillion.

The US should have donated at least 6 billion dollars to the effort. And don't say they didn't have that much money, they wasted many times that amount that on ill-planned and ill-implemented bailouts just last year.


Of course, while the U.S is bad, China is an absolute disgrace. Third largest economy in the world, Government is rich beyond measure, and only donated 63 billion to the tsunami effort, not to mention the paltry donation for Haiti. They take the cake in being cheap.

Why don't you put up the numbers for total foreign aid the US gives compared to all other countries? It's about helping, not how much you give or how much someone thinks you can afford to give. A bum on the street can easily make a future for himself with $100,000. If Bill Gates gave the bum $100,000 the bum has no right to disrespect Bill because he could have afforded to give $10 million.

The sense of entitlement runs rampant these days. We're supposed to be responsible for ourselves, not expect someone else to take care of us.

[jmb987]

The US should have donated at least 6 billion dollars to the effort. And don't say they didn't have that much money...

You sir, are clueless. We (the united states) DON'T have any money. Are you aware of the $12 trillion national debt? We are broke as a nation. The fact that we donated any money should be appreciated. And while I agree that the bailouts were stupid, that was essentially financed by China (and the Fed).

[aIvin adams]

the best part of this thread is manocad's presumption that individuals cannot deliberate, make an opinion, and share an opinion about the ethical behavior of other individuals/groups of individuals.

do you take issue with the idea of philosophy/ethics, at large? or are you so sure that a 'non-aggression' principal (as applied to tleling othe rpeople what to do w their money) is not only correct, but SELF-EVIDENTLY correct, that you are not willing to engage w other people's perspectives in an intellectually honest way?

whats funny is that whether or not we can judge the nba for giving $X is an interesting question. but you responded to the OP's certainty on the issue with an outraged yet equally unexplicated certainty!!

[Asianiac_24]

Uhh, I think ALL of us know someone or of group of people hurting in more ways than one, whether they be in Africa, Afghanistan, India, or Haiti. I don't think just because you or anyone having a "vested interest" in anything reserves you the right to resort to personal insults.

THIS.

I'm sure we have lots of international posters here so why didn't those from the Philippines whine when their supertyphoon struck? How about Indonesia when that Tsunami hit? Taiwan ( was it earthquake too?) China? etc etc? Those posters didn't B&%#h about how little or no aid from the nba got to them.

You have vested interest and we understand that. However, if those posters from those countries can behave with class, I think you can too.

Taiwan got hit by flood

[LakerFanMan]

I can't believe how people can be angry at an organization for giving 1 million dollars. They gave ONE MILLION DOLLARS to charity and they're getting bashed for it. It's mind boggling.

Some people are just never satisfied.

[Manocad]

the best part of this thread is manocad's presumption that individuals cannot deliberate, make an opinion, and share an opinion about the ethical behavior of other individuals/groups of individuals.

do you take issue with the idea of philosophy/ethics, at large? or are you so sure that a 'non-aggression' principal (as applied to tleling othe rpeople what to do w their money) is not only correct, but SELF-EVIDENTLY correct, that you are not willing to engage w other people's perspectives in an intellectually honest way?

whats funny is that whether or not we can judge the nba for giving $X is an interesting question. but you responded to the OP's certainty on the issue with an outraged yet equally unexplicated certainty!!

Outraged? You funny.
This has nothing to do with philosophy or ethics. This is about personal agenda. The OP admitted as much. Me stating that IS engaging the OP in an intellectually honest way. Unless you think that disagreeing with the use of personal agenda to determine whether or not the actions of others are worthy of criticism is intellectually dishonest.

[aIvin adams]

This has nothing to do with philosophy or ethics.

lol. the point of my post was that this does have to do with philosophy or ethics, and that i think it's funny that you don't. i made two errors: 1) characterizing the replies you've given in this thread as 'outraged,' which i cant prove and wouldnt want to anyway. that was distracting. and 2) saying that you 'responded to the OP' when i should have said 'responded to the topic of this thread,' since i was referring to posts you made replying to numerous other posters in the first pages of this thread.

these posts:

Isn't it great to spend other people's money?

Here's the thing with that...you don't get to decide the obligations of others. The only obligation you're responsible for determining is your own.

... you're in no position to pass judgement on what anyone else donates.

You don't get to decide what someone else does with THEIR money, no matter where it came from (assuming they came by it legally).

that last one is the best bc you throw in there 'legally.' as if debates substantitvely similar to the one you are presuming doesnt exist (the debate about what is and is not an acceptable donation, in this case) arent the exact basis of what is and is not legal

[Kyrama]

Damn these poor people for not taking care of themselves! Why can't the people in Darfur get a job at Barnes and Noble or Starbucks like the rest of us?

[HMFFL]

Donté Stallworth donated a dollar for every follower he received on twitter and Wes Walker matched it. Between the two it was roughly $60k.

[Manocad]

This has nothing to do with philosophy or ethics.

lol. the point of my post was that this does have to do with philosophy or ethics, and that i think it's funny that you don't. i made two errors: 1) characterizing the replies you've given in this thread as 'outraged,' which i cant prove and wouldnt want to anyway. that was distracting. and 2) saying that you 'responded to the OP' when i should have said 'responded to the topic of this thread,' since i was referring to posts you made replying to numerous other posters in the first pages of this thread.

that last one is the best bc you throw in there 'legally.' as if debates substantitvely similar to the one you are presuming doesnt exist (the debate about what is and is not an acceptable donation, in this case) arent the exact basis of what is and is not legal

Let me explain it for you...money obtained illegally is therefore subject to seizure by the proper authorities, meaning other people DO have a right to determine what is done with that money.

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong on the philosophy and ethics thing. "The NBA should have done more because I want them to" is not a philosophical or ethical argument. And as I previously stated, the OP admitted that that is what was driving his criticism.

[aIvin adams]

Let me explain it for you...money obtained illegally is therefore subject to seizure by the proper authorities, meaning other people DO have a right to determine what is done with that money.

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong on the philosophy and ethics thing. "The NBA should have done more because I want them to" is not a philosophical or ethical argument. And as I previously stated, the OP admitted that that is what was driving his criticism.

what people ought to do with their money is largely the foundaiton of what they are legally obligated to do. (almost) nobody is talking about whether some realgmer has the legal right to control what the nba donates. lol!

obviously, we decide to tax the nba on its profits, which is money that is (supposedly!) used for infrastructure which benefits everyone. whats funny about those quotes is that you are giving an opinion..but the opinion is that nobody else can have an opinion!

eg..

maybe there should be a special assessment for haiti on corporations?

Here's the thing with that...you don't get to decide the obligations of others. The only obligation you're responsible for determining is your own.

uh... OK!! yessuh!! lol.

[Manocad]

what people ought to do with their money is largely the foundaiton of what they are legally obligated to do. (almost) nobody is talking about whether some realgmer has the legal right to control what the nba donates. lol!

lol is right. Obviously no realgmer has the legal right to control what the NBA donates. That wasn't the issue. It's whether someone is justified in expecting others to act as they would because it suits their personal agenda.

obviously, we decide to tax the nba on its profits, which is money that is (supposedly!) used for infrastructure which benefits everyone. whats funny about those quotes is that you are giving an opinion..but the opinion is that nobody else can have an opinion!

So you're saying that the taxes the NBA pays are supposed to establish an infrastructure for the benefit of Haiti?

And you're confusing 'opinion' with 'judgement.' Having a right to an opinion and having a right to judge are two different things entirely.

Here's the thing with that...you don't get to decide the obligations of others. The only obligation you're responsible for determining is your own.

uh... OK!! yessuh!! lol.

If I'm wrong, send me your money; I say you're obligated to do so. You should have no problem with that, right?

[aIvin adams]

lol is right. Obviously no realgmer has the legal right to control what the NBA donates. That wasn't the issue. It's whether someone is justified in expecting others to act as they would because it suits their personal agenda.

no, it's whether someone is justified in expecting others to act in any certain way at all. that's why i pulled all those quotes from you, which were responses to many posters, not just the OP.

So you're saying that the taxes the NBA pays are supposed to establish an infrastructure for the benefit of Haiti?

nope. ANALOGY NOW! *shakes fist at analogy pole*

And you're confusing 'opinion' with 'judgement.' Having a right to an opinion and having a right to judge are two different things entirely.

two different things? entirely? http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/judgment

If I'm wrong, send me your money; I say you're obligated to do so. You should have no problem with that, right?

do you remember rsavaj's post (which you replied to) where he alluded to reason? i mean both the process of ratiocination as well as the general idea of an explanation. also, do you have a paypal account?


$1 million seems like a lot.