Heh, why, did something in that post read funny? (Funny haha or funny strange?) :p

The next time i meet a building inspetor i think i'll buy him or her lunch. I dont think the're liked very much.

Depends on the building inspector. We had a great one who knew why the codes were in place and worked with you to help you solve problems.

The new inspector was standing in a room I'd built that had two exits (on opposite sides of the room) that both led to the street. She was going on and on about how the window openings were 1/2" shy of code for egress, failing to note that with the extra exit the room could have been windowless and still would have passed egress inspection. Fenestration, not so much.

The fact the house was built entirely of leaves held together with my spit didn't go over so well, but that's another issue.

OK, but still, what was up with my post that you needed sleep or glasses (curiosity killing the cat, here.)

Read what he quoted, not what you wrote.

Deployed troops are getting emergency leave if they have immediate family in Haiti. I think it is a good move. They did the same thing for troops affected by Hurricane Katrina.

D'oh! Thanks pierce. :p

I was just checking out my RADIO wondering if I should find a picture of it because apparently my post wasn't explaining it very well. :lol:

So I'm thinking about all this donation business. Some more.

Even stupid people aren't that stupid to think donate a buck today, tomorrow 5 people will get a bottle of water. They see the aid on the way, they figure they don't need to donate as it's already paid for and shipped.....

So wouldn't it be better to run the campaign along the lines of "we're using our supplies to help these people, we need to replenidh them for next time... next time it could be you......"

I disagree. From what I've seen, all successful media campaigns have always appealed to people's emotional side and not their logical side. If a donation campaign has a sense of urgency to it where the audience is hinted that their donation can immediately have an effect, it will probably be more successful. If a donation campaign focuses on people's logical side, it probably won't be as successful.

Maybe a jingle would help. They could have search and rescue workers shouting into collapsed buildings ...
[Tony Orlando]
"Knock three times on the ceiling if you want me
Twice on the pipe, if the answer is no."
[/Dawn]

You sick fuck.









:lol::blush:

Hey, why you dragging me into this?

In general, we Earthlings are coming together to help these folks in their time of great need. Why weren't we there before? Why weren't we able to help them build houses with rebar? Why weren't we there to ensure that they had a couple days of survival supplies?

And why are we so generous to these people, and we don't want to help out our neighbors when it comes to the healthcare issue? Is anybody worrying about the cost of helping Haiti the way some of us are worrying about the cost of the proposed healthcare bill?

Because we tend to only act when we are being affected by something physically or emotionally. This loss of life affected us emotionally so we reacted with aid.

Oh, that and the tax deduction... :)

Seriously, I think the whole texting donation angle has proven to be a huge success. Stick to the groups that you know do the good work, like the American Red Cross. We have slowly donated a good sum over the last few days through various means. Today at Fresh Market we added a sum to our final bill. It is all good work.

Because this is an emotional hook. A baby in a collapsed in a building??? OMG here's my debit card.

Why weren't we there helping them rebar? Because it is not our fucking job to go do everything for everybody. Why didn't we make sure they had survival supplies? It isn't our fucking job. I'm more interested in whether or not my neighbor has supplies - because that could possibly effect me in the future. Haiti? Like to help but resources are finite.

I can't agree more LO123. But a small donation is appropriate if it fits your budget. If everyone does a small bit it will add up. Anyone who has traveled to third world countries knows that you could give all of your wealth and little would change in the end. But if I can reach out and touch someone or some group for a moment in time I feel that I have at least contributed. It may seem trite but that is my approach. I try to give more closer to home but there should be no guilt in reaching out beyond the borders when in time of crisis.

I think doing what you can right now to help someone is a good thing. Hell, I once knew a guy who gave something to somebody once. I thought that was kind of good. I was commenting more on the "why didn't we do something before" sentiment.

Right on.

I'm sick of the US trying to fix and help every country in the world when we still have some many in need in our country. So many times, we have rushed to the aid of others to have them become our enemies later. The US has pledged 100 billion and deployed 10,000 troops. These are assets we sorely need in Afghanistan. Why does the world expect the US lead the way in rescuing Haiti? Why doesn't some other nation take the lead?

That all being said, we have Operation Cigar Sarge. Our cigar club is donating all of our money pooled for our monthly cigar order. Plus, we are selling our "cigar reserve" in a fund raising drive for the relief effort. Our goal is to raise $1,000

I know it sounds like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth when you compare the two paragraphs. What can I say?

Nothing you need to say, Sarge. You sound like a human being who has been there and experienced that and is just talking the hurtful but honest truth.

:notworthy

Wait, why would you need those assets in Afghanistan -another country the US is trying to "fix" and one whose problems weren't aided by natural disaster.

Why should the world look to the US above other countries to help in Haiti? Maybe because it's a huge, rich country, right next door, which is always bragging about how awesome and christian it is?

I have several friends who are stationed in Afghanistan, and my policatically uneducated knowledge of the the situation is that the assets that are needed there are NOT so much for the citizens of the country as the American soliders who are there on orders from our country. They need goods that we take for granted such as decent toilet paper and sun screen because while we are complaining of the cold, they are fighting in sand storms.

*just my 2 cents worth*

Just pull them out. Like Big Sarge said, why does the US have to be the one to "help"? There's plenty of TP back home. my 2c.

And here's what MLK had to say on the whole issue

Very nice, Monster. I just realized that I have been feeling sad all day and didn't know why. Then I thought about it and remembered I'd started my day by reading a number of horrific reports about Haiti. Such tragedy. I wish I could do more to help, just as I wish I could do more about all the suffering and inequalities of this terrible beautiful world we live in.

You can. it isn't all about money. At least not your money. Use your words, your passion to persuade those who can help financially to do so, whatever it is that you feel needs doing. Lead by example. The example being a "can do" attitude, not a "well I'd love to help, but I'm in no position to" kind of thing. You'll be amazed at what you can achieve if you really try. If you have no $$, volunteer to man the donation phonelines or stuff envelopes or drive the aid truck... if you truly want to help, there is a niche for you. And if you truly want to help, you will find it.

I agree with you, monster. When a person spends their time saying, 'someone needs to do something about...' it usually means they, themselves are the ones who need to do the task at hand.

I also strongly believe in 'charity beginning at home'. On a side note, why is it so much easier and less expensive to adopt a child from overseas when we have so many children here in this country who need permanent homes but can't be adopted due to all the red tape the American government places on adoption?

You might be able to get a deal on a Haitian kid right now.

Um... we have plenty of older children here in this country who need permanent homes. There are waiting lists that are years long for healthy newborn babies in this country. It's easy to adopt newborns overseas because they have lots, lots more of them. It's also cheaper, to be sure, but there are lots of couples willing to pay the price of an American adoption, and they still have to wait for years.

Hell, Bruce, I would imagine that most of the adults right now would be willing to be adopted too!

1st: A large number of people who are donating and helping in the Haiti crisis probably have regular causes the contribute to. They could be diverting funds from their norm and less pressing issues, or just giving for the Haiti crisis in addition to their norm. That being said, we (the US) have a large amount of disposable income, and there is a lot of selfishness.

2nd: As much as I want our troops in Afghanistan/Iraq to live decently (I have friends there too.) I'd much rather solve the problem of them having shortages by bringing them home. Plus, that sounds more like a supply requisition failure or mismanagement than a lack of funds. Although the troops lives are in danger, a lack of TP and toothpaste isn't nearly as pressing as having a building on top of you.

3rd: Why be upset about US children not getting adopted in favor of foreign children? What about all the parents who goes through loads of cash for fertility treatments and invitro, they could be adopting. Those medical costs add up to probably the cost of adoption or more, can take years, and potentially hazardous to the health of mom. I personally think of adoption (from any country) as being more beneficial to humanity and the child. That's my personal belief and choice, I'm not willing to force it on others.
The "red tape" in the US may suck, but I imagine it helps children from being adopted and really pressed into various forms of slavery, which does happen in countries with less "red tape." Like 'fobble said, its difficult to adopt a newborn in the US because of supply and demand, not just because of red tape.

I am very much aware of that and that is part of my point. Why is it so hard here to adopt? I see kids returned everyday by dfacs to abusive, neglectful parents while childless couples desperately wanting kids (babies or not) get turned down for stupid reasons such as too old, too poor, house not big enough, car not big enough. Basically stupid excuses.

Maybe you should look into the reasons for the guidelines before dismissing them as "stupid."
Children being returned to bad biological relatives is unrelated to adults being unable to adopt.

I stand corrected. My wording may not have been the best choice but my sentiment is the same. Yes, the two instances may be different but are related at the same time. When children are taken out of abusive situations and there are no blood relatives who can (or be willing to) take the children into their custody the children are placed in foster homes. Yes, some of the foster homes are not the best places (NOTE I said some not all). However, occassionally children are placed in foster care and are left there for extended periods of time. About the time the children get settled into a family environment and the foster parents decide to make it permanent, somehow the birth parents decide to be parents again and thus starts the vicious cycle all over again.

I do realize that not every situation is the same so please understand I am not trying to group every instance into the same category.

I don't think birth parents should have a "right" to the child (once they've 1st proven untrustworthy.) Each situation should be investigated and decided which is best for the child, stay with stable foster parents, or go back to questionable birth parents? (Can you guess my bias?) Also, I think that if a couple attempting to adopt from a pregnant woman, go through the process, pay for the medical, buy supplies ect ect, and the biological mother changes her mind after an extended period of time, that the couple should be able to recoup some of their losses from that woman who backed out on the agreement. Yes, I think she has the right to change her mind, but not at the detriment of the couple. I think this would cut down on fraud and rash decisions to "keep my baby" once its popped out.

Hadn't thought of that aspect but you are probably right. Holding the birth mother financially accountable for her decisons could cut down on scammers who prey on other women's strong desire to become mothers.

I have a kid you can adopt. She's 22 and to big to put back.

Thanks Mercenary, but when I married capn I became an instant mother to a 30yr old and 2 grandkids.

Bring the troops home? Then what? Do you think the extremists and the jihadist will leave us alone? Didn't they start this mess? The truth is we have forced them to fight in their own back yard and to expend their resources.

The US has led the fight and we are stretched thin. Other nations can lead the way in Haiti. We no longer are the worldest wealthiest nation. We are deep in debt and China holds our "markers". The Central America & Carribean nations can lead the rescue of Haiti.

That being said, I urge everyone to donate to NGOs to help Haiti.

You can look into a process called micro-loaning (I think it is called that). It is where you loan out a certain amount of money for a small business in a 3rd world country but you get no interest off it. Look at this website:
http://www.kiva.org/

It will not solve the problem, but Al Qeada and other terrorists groups have specifically said their jihad against the US is because of American troops and influence in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries and our support of Israel. They are reactionary to our foreign policy.

But, there is nothing we can do about the past and need to focus on the present and future. Whatever that means...

Paint me cynical if you like, but I don't believe anything they say. <shrug>

Second.

Wow its sooner than I expected, but apparently the US isn't doing enough or doing it right.

As I understand it the French medical jet was diverted until they could make room on the ground. Maybe if less reporters were flying in the military could do the job they were sent to do.

As for the Marines arriving with weapons, well yea, they are Marines, that is what they do. I wouldn't want to be in that country without a weapon at this point and time if I were them.

. . . and if I were a doctor or supply person et all, I'd want their protection too.

But it's no more "our fucking job" to dig them out, feed them, and give them medical care after an earthquake. Yet you say...

It would have cost less in lives and money if we had been good neighbors proactively.

I wouldn't have wanted to be there without a weapon, before the quake.:headshake

OK, Chavez. :rolleyes: The UN had peace keeping people there, something like 5000 of them. What should we have done, invade the country?
Nobody in their right mind is going to invest in an unstable, lawless, country.

:redcard: :bs:

You're right: fewer people dies because we did nothing and their houses collapsed on them. Now give more to charity, Einstein.

We're investing through charities now, though. Hmmm.

We gave them nothing? Are you really sure about that? :eyebrow:

As recently as 2006 we gave them 163 million according to one site and another has it listed as 55 as recently as 2008.

Nothing in terms of the charity that has been pouring in for the last week.

that wasn'ty your point - You said

"The US was proactive. We gave them well over $250,000,000 over the last few years. You are wrong.

It would be wonderful if we could help the entire third world - and I'm sure there are policy changes, etc that we could implement to make the aid we do give more effective. But even the US doesn't have the kind of money to give such substantial amounts of assistance to Rwanda, Ethiopia, Brazil, on and on. Sure, if we had a magic ball we could have put money in Haiti ahead of time, the same as we could have warned people about the tsunami's and sent aid to Indonesia, India, etc, ahead of time. Unfortunately, time travel has yet to be invented (no doubt the pentagon is holding out on us).

OK Classic, you win. We did not give them nothing. I exagerated. We did not help our neighbors so much that their buildings collapsed on them because of all the rebar they couldn't afford.

It's a shame. We're very good at being reactive, not very good at being proactive.

what's this 'we' shit, white man?

Not you. It's the people who are giving to charities since the earthquake.

beauty is only skin deep


ugly goes to the bone