Do celebrities campaign against terrorism?

[Red Dawn]

I swear, some of you are just a bunch of Red-faced Blustering Contrarian Boobs

Yeah look whose talking. You slam MCartney yet he also helped raise a lot of Money for the Victims of Terrorism by putting on a Concert in Central Park for the 9/11 Victims.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Red (Double) Cross

Red Cross, and its Liberty Disaster Relief Fund, has come under a storm of criticism for allegedly delaying aid to the victims' families, failing to cooperate with other charities and government agencies that are trying to coordinate relief, and diverting a large portion of the funds for use in future, unrelated disasters.

Less than two months after the attacks, and after more than $564 million had already been raised, Red Cross spokeswoman Dana Allen admitted that Liberty Fund donations would not all be used for the September 11 attack victims. "We also need to make sure we're ready to help as the nation engages in military action, and as we respond to more terrorist threats."

Former Red Cross President, Dr. Bernadine Healy, echoed the response. "We have been so straightforward in saying what we are using the money for," Healy told BusinessWeek. "The disaster relief involves this entire country, and its readiness for future terrorist events, for healing, for grieving."

Stacy Palmer, editor at the Chronicle of Philanthropy, was skeptical: "One of the biggest mistakes the American Red Cross made was they didn't move fast enough to say what they're going to do with all the money," Palmer told the Los Angeles Times. "And so far, there aren't a lot of explanations coming that the average person who donated money is going to be happy about."

Daniel Borochoff, President of the American Institute of Philanthropy, says there is nothing in principle wrong with the Red Cross using major disasters to subsidize other relief efforts - just tell donors beforehand. "If they are going to do that, they have to say so explicitly. It can't be in the fine print," says Borochoff. The Red Cross has a long history of diverting donations, and has been criticized before for not using donations specifically raised for particular disasters - some requiring intervention by local officials to require them to pay up on donations the public intended their contributions to be used for.

In 1995, the Red Cross raised $13 million to aid victims and families of the Oklahoma City bombing. But when this proved to be far more money than it said it needed - it spent $2.6 million on victims - the charity earmarked the surplus to fund other less-publicized disasters.

In 1997, the Red Cross collected $16 million to aid victims of the Red River flood in Minnesota and North Dakota. But state officials were angered to find out that more than a year later the organization still had not spent $4 million of the contributions to benefit victims.

Minnesota's then-Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III held harsh public hearings that resulted in a scathing 40-page report to push for the release of the unspent victim funds. Humphrey did not accuse the organization of fraud, but said it was not candid enough with donors: "When you make appeals at a time of great emotion and stress, you have a significant responsibility to see to it that you use the funds for the purpose you state."

As the Red Cross controversy heated up, Bill O'Reilly, of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor jumped all over the story. Acting more like a pit bull than a news analysis anchor, O'Reilly chewed and clawed through every major charity organization. A few weeks after the September 21, 2001 national telethon, America: A Tribute to Heroes, - which raised $128,167,000 - O'Reilly got his second wind and went after the celebrities that he felt were not sufficiently pressuring the charities to deliver on their promises.

O'Reilly can be credited for doing much to expedite charitable distributions, through on-air pressure, emotional appeals from many of the families of the victims, and constant calls for a government investigation.

Washington was apparently listening. On November 6, 2001, a congressional hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel was convened to determine donor intent and whether the Red Cross misled donors.

With former Red Cross President, Dr. Bernadine Healy in attendance, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer testified: "I see the Red Cross, which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars that was intended by the donating public to be used for the victims of September 11 - I see those funds being sequestered into long-term plans for an organization."

The hearing was contentious at times, with Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA) saying, "What's at issue here is that a special fund was established for these families. It was specially funded for this event, September 11, and it is being closed now because we are told enough money's been raised in it, but we're also being told, by the way, we're going to give two-thirds of it away to other Red Cross needs."

Dr. Healy testified that the Red Cross always made clear that some of the money would be used for "future critical priorities." Tauzin interrupted saying, "What's at issue here is that a separate fund was established for these families," he said, pounding the table. "We are hearing from families that their needs are not being met."

Eight days after the hearings, the Red Cross reversed its position and announced that all donations to the Liberty Fund would go to aid the victims and their families. Said interim president Harold Decker, "Americans have spoken loudly and clearly that they want our relief efforts directed at the people affected by the September 11 tragedies."

After a November, December 2001 surge in payouts to more than 55,000 individuals and family members, the Liberty Fund has only distributed $15 million since the previous three-month report dated April 30, 2002 - and still has almost $400 million remaining to be distributed.

According to the American Red Cross' (ambiguous) six page Liberty Disaster Relief Fund Quarterly Report dated August 1, 2002, the distribution of funds continues to move at a snail's pace.

Liberty Fund officials say it expects to eventually pay out a total of $943 million overall, including a $133 million budget for continued disaster relief over a three-to-five year period, based on demonstrated need, primarily in areas of mental health and uncovered health care, as well as long-term family support and service coordination.

Liberty Fund
Total Contributions $ 988,000,000
Total Distributions to Date $( 458,000,000 )
Immediate Disaster Relief ( 95,000,000 )
Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )
Total Funds Spent
$ ( 590,000,000 )

Balance Remaining $ 398,000,000*

* The Quarterly Report dated August 1, 2002 states that the Fund expects to distribute a total of $708 million to the families of the deceased or missing, persons seriously injured in the attacks, displaced residents and economically impacted individuals, and disaster responders - and a total of $943 million overall.

Didn't Dole's wife handle this for a bit? They look like the UN....

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Just curious because now Paul McCartney wants to ban cluster munitions. Story. Maybe if they used their positions to speak out against the people who cause us to use cluster munitions and landmines, then we wouldn't have to use them.

My favorite quote: "'It would be great to outlaw these cowardly weapons,' he said." Ah, because it's your ass on the line out in that APC in the desert, isn't it Sir Paul?

That is some of the worst logic I"ve ever heard. They MADE US use cluster bombs. Riiight. That's like a guy with an AK shooting a kid with a BB gun because the kid MADE HIM use the AK. WTF.

You apparently don't listen to yourself. The causes for the use of cluster munitions, among a great many other munitions, are terrorism, WMD proliferation, and defiance of cease-fire agreements. The fact is that limiting our use of legitimate weapons puts our troops in danger, but I suppose since you're fat and happy at your keyboard that's ok with you.

Might as well use nukes and the plague too, it'd help protect our troops. Or at least that's the logic you seem to subscribe to...

 

[ConclamoLudus]

I don't think there are any celebrities that campaign FOR terrorism. I hope not. At least they don't do it knowingly. Nobody campaigns for innocent people to die. I think that by not canceling their concerts and by keeping us entertained, they are campaigning against terrorism. Of course some will try to take advantage of their stance whatever the case may be, no press is bad press, and there is no better way to be in the public eye than to stir up controversy. But to say that makes them the enemy is ridiculous. Although Sean Penn's do-it-yourself iraqi propaganda trip wasn't the best thing for Arab opinion, but that just makes him a fool, not an enemy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Red (Double) Cross ...
Liberty Fund
Total Contributions $ 988,000,000
Total Distributions to Date $( 458,000,000 )
Immediate Disaster Relief ( 95,000,000 )
Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )
Total Funds Spent
$ ( 590,000,000 )

...

Ummm, exactly what does this mean... "Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )"... ?

Their "cut" for managing the fund. :disgust:

Their "cut"? Hmm.

I'd like to see a break down on these costs, but considering that $37 million is about 5% of the money collected, this is really cheap as far as Non-Profit Organizations is concerned.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Red (Double) Cross ...
Liberty Fund
Total Contributions $ 988,000,000
Total Distributions to Date $( 458,000,000 )
Immediate Disaster Relief ( 95,000,000 )
Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )
Total Funds Spent
$ ( 590,000,000 )

...

Ummm, exactly what does this mean... "Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )"... ?

Their "cut" for managing the fund. :disgust:

Their "cut"? Hmm.

I'd like to see a break down on these costs, but considering that $37 million is about 5% of the money collected, this is really cheap as far as Non-Profit Organizations is concerned.

Are they not already getting paid to "steward" any funds that come in?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Red (Double) Cross ...
Liberty Fund
Total Contributions $ 988,000,000
Total Distributions to Date $( 458,000,000 )
Immediate Disaster Relief ( 95,000,000 )
Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )
Total Funds Spent
$ ( 590,000,000 )

...

Ummm, exactly what does this mean... "Fund Stewardship ( 37,000,000 )"... ?

Their "cut" for managing the fund. :disgust:

Their "cut"? Hmm.

I'd like to see a break down on these costs, but considering that $37 million is about 5% of the money collected, this is really cheap as far as Non-Profit Organizations is concerned.

Are they not already getting paid to "steward" any funds that come in?

Depends on what "steward" means.

 

[Corn]

Might as well use nukes and the plague too, it'd help protect our troops. Or at least that's the logic you seem to subscribe to...

You're right, we should only equip our troops with bad language..........Or at least that's the logic you seem to subscribe to...

 

[Tom]

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing Paul McCartney campaign against terrorism at the Super Bowl, in his concerts, and a bunch of other places after 9-11. He even wrote a song.

sorry if already mentioned, I am old and can only read part of these threads because of my BP.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Still has nothing to do with the fact that they helped raise some of that money only to be attacked by O'Rielly. Sure the United Way needed to be kicked in the Arse over the way they handled it but there was no reason to deride the Celebrities who raised the money.

Of course in doing so he was just pandering to the typical Fox Audience.

I think this quote from O'Reilly's site explains it all (linked already from someone else):

Are you getting the picture here, George? Talking Points believes that all the celebrities involved in fundraising for the families have a responsibility to care about what happens to the money they asked for. Mr. Clooney can call me any name he wants, but facts are facts.

His point is clear, and it's fair. You say he's just pandering to his audience, but his case is well-founded. He believes that if a celebrity goes on a show and asks people for money, they should also use the influence they have to make sure the money they asked for goes where they said it was going. If I went on a program and asked millions of people for money, I'd be ticked if the United Way wasn't sending the money where I was claiming it was going to be sent to. These celebrities asked for money and stood on a stage on national television and said that every penny would go to the families of 9/11. They didn't say 65 cents on the dollar would go to them, they said 100%. And if I were the actors, I'd be especially ticked that the United Way had the nerve to lie to me!

However, in your world, people like O'Reilly can't do any good because you think that giving him credit for this one thing would then validate everything he ever did and you would lose your future arguments that he's just a conservative patsy. And, to some degree, that's true. I'm not going to sit here and tell everyone that O'Reilly is somehow god's gift to the world, but he did the right thing.

Even if you think he's pandering to his audience, which may or may not be true, you cannot deny that his criticisms were valid. And, if they are, you cannot fault him for this story. It doesn't matter what his motivaitons are, if the effect of the story was positive, then it doesn't matter why he did it.

In all of my argumentation, I pride myself that I'm able to admit when I'm wrong. I would hope that in this instance, considering how considerable the evidence is against you, you'd admit that you were wrong and O'Reilly's criticisms were fair and just. That's all I ask. Somehow, I don't see you doing that.

 

[Ilmater]

I assumed he wouldn't respond. In the future, when I see him post, I'll make sure to remind him.