Don't forget to stop by your hospital & donate some blood folks.

During 911, many people gave blood, only to have a lot of it thrown out
because the red cross could not process or store it. Also most of the
victims did not need blood so it was a waste of time and money.

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
I used to do networking for Red Cross. I wouldn't give them a dime. I
will donate blood and volunteer my time though, but I will not trust
them with my money. Same goes for the Salvation Army.

vincent p. norris wrote:
Would you care to tell the rest of us why?

You have never heard the saying, "Red Cross, first ones in after the
satellite trucks arrive, first ones out after the satellite trucks
leave."

No, I haven't, John, but even if I had, a saying is not evidence. It
is just rumor.

Remember that 9/11 fiasco, Red Cross said just send us money to help the
9/11 victims, then spent the money on other administrative things?
Lizzy Dole's successor lost her job over that one.

Seems to me the important message here is that she lost her job. The
Red Cross did not tolerate that behavior. You can't think of any "bad
apples" in other organizations, including the federal government? Too
often, they do NOT lose their jobs.

I've heard several on-the-scene reports from the Katrina disaster area
of how much the Red cross is doing to help. And I checked with Charity
Navigator, which gives the ARC a four-star rating (the highest). It
spends 91% of funds on charitable efforts. Here's the URL:


http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...orgid/3277.htm

I have no connection with the Red Cross except that I give blood and
money, and will continue to do so until I receive better evidence that
I should not. YMMV, of course.

vince norris

Andre wrote:
During 911, many people gave blood, only to have a lot of it thrown out
because the red cross could not process or store it. Also most of the
victims did not need blood so it was a waste of time and money.

That's the way it turned out, but there was no way of knowing that when the call
went out. Originally it was thought that there might be hundreds of survivors
buried under the rubble. If that had actually been the case, they would've
needed to have that blood already drawn and available.

As far as blood storage is concerned, the Red Cross is no worse than any other
organization. Whole blood doesn't keep all that long and plasma is of limited use.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

It takes a few days for the collected blood to be processed, test, etc. and
it costs a lot. Better to give funds then blood.

After 9/11, even if people had been found, the donated blood would not have
made its way to them. Also, much of it went to places out of NY.

The important thing in an emergency is to keep up the volume using saline
or water, the body can cope with a decrease in red blood cells, but if the
pump runs dry there is nothing to be done.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:gOjTe.8951$rh.4561@trndny03...
Andre wrote:
During 911, many people gave blood, only to have a lot of it thrown out
because the red cross could not process or store it. Also most of the
victims did not need blood so it was a waste of time and money.

That's the way it turned out, but there was no way of knowing that when
the call
went out. Originally it was thought that there might be hundreds of
survivors
buried under the rubble. If that had actually been the case, they would've
needed to have that blood already drawn and available.

As far as blood storage is concerned, the Red Cross is no worse than any
other
organization. Whole blood doesn't keep all that long and plasma is of
limited use.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

It was a long time ago. I was their network administrator, writing
batch files, programing in c++, QuickBasic, Pascal, SQL and Fortran.
Using Novell Netware, IBM TokenRing blah blah blah...

This was before Windows, all DOS, remember DOS? Anyways, let's just
say I didn't like what I saw.

On 5 Sep 2005 16:58:06 -0700, "Flyingmonk" wrote:

I'd rather not. Sorry.

Why not? And are you really sorry?

vince norris

I concur completely. All of these organizations are paying their
employees/CEO's way too much, in the case of the Red Cross Ms. Marty Evans
gets over $500,000 a year.

Volunteer your time and she and her slugs keep more of the money.


"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yeah, INNOVA hospital is where my wife and I donate regularly. Every
six weeks is their requirement. We do it when we feel like it, maybe
five six times a year.

I used to do networking for Red Cross. I wouldn't give them a dime. I
will donate blood and volunteer my time though, but I will not trust
them with my money. Same goes for the Salvation Army. The United Way,
I haven't heard anything bad (lately).

That is exactly the opposite, the Red Cross spends 91% on operations and 8%
on saving people.

The whole organization stinks. They will take in close to one billion
dollars before this is over and most will be placed into their general fun,
er, fund.

The last CEO was fired for doing exactly what this CEO is doing.

Wake up and understand that the Red Cross is just a vehicle for people who
can't make it in government to have high paying jobs at the public trough
albeit through donations.

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
I used to do networking for Red Cross. I wouldn't give them a dime. I
will donate blood and volunteer my time though, but I will not trust
them with my money. Same goes for the Salvation Army.

vincent p. norris wrote:
Would you care to tell the rest of us why?

You have never heard the saying, "Red Cross, first ones in after the
satellite trucks arrive, first ones out after the satellite trucks leave."

No, I haven't, John, but even if I had, a saying is not evidence. It
is just rumor.

Remember that 9/11 fiasco, Red Cross said just send us money to help the
9/11 victims, then spent the money on other administrative things?
Lizzy Dole's successor lost her job over that one.

Seems to me the important message here is that she lost her job. The
Red Cross did not tolerate that behavior. You can't think of any "bad
apples" in other organizations, including the federal government? Too
often, they do NOT lose their jobs.

I've heard several on-the-scene reports from the Katrina disaster area
of how much the Red cross is doing to help. And I checked with Charity
Navigator, which gives the ARC a four-star rating (the highest). It
spends 91% of funds on charitable efforts. Here's the URL:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...orgid/3277.htm

I have no connection with the Red Cross except that I give blood and
money, and will continue to do so until I receive better evidence that
I should not. YMMV, of course.

vince norris

That is exactly the opposite, the Red Cross spends 91% on operations and 8%
on saving people.

You are both ignorant and arrogant. Go read what it says on Charity
Navigator. Do some homework before shooting off your keyboard.

vince norris

Did you confuse the Red Cross with the Federal Government?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


That is exactly the opposite, the Red Cross spends 91% on operations and
8%
on saving people.

I concur completely. All of these organizations are paying their
employees/CEO's way too much, in the case of the Red Cross Ms. Marty Evans
gets over $500,000 a year.

Well, you got her name wrong and her salary wrong!

Whether what she does receive is too much or not, I have no idea. But
Charity Navigator reports the ARC's Administrative costs are only 5./4
percent, and gives the ARC a four-star rating, the highest it gives..

I check out all the charities from which I get mail requesting money;
not very many have administrative costs lower than that. And not very
many spend more than 91 percent of their revenues "doing good."

It's in the interest of the public, and the donors, that the ARC (and
other charities) be run by a highly skilfull administrator, so we get
the most bang for the buck we donate. They don't come cheap. She
could make a hell of a lot more running a for-profit corporation.

vince norris