My blood boils...

[Kaidy Mae]

The newest issue of Maclean's arrived in my mailbox yesterday and I have been absolutely furious ever since.

Click here to hear about how the Red Cross gave $600US to a crack head to buy his pregnant broad an engagement ring.

There are so many facts, statements and circumstances in this article that infuriate me. I really don't know where to begin.

I really wish I had've donated my money elsewhere.

[Tooly]

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!

cant believe that piece of crap article!! faaack my blood bils too sister

the best, or worst part of that read was this quote"" he "found $2,000 just floating in the water," "

what kinda bullshit is that?

[Large Marge]

I gave up McLean's when they featured Belinda Stronach on the cover and then insulted women everywhere by attributing her recent successes to the power of Prada.

Also, I try to keep all of my donated dollars at the grassroots level so that I can see how and where the $$ is being spent. Try not to be discouraged Kaidy Mae... I often think that the positive energy that comes out of giving is often just as effective, if not more effective, than the gift itself.

Peace & Love to you

[Steve from Cleveland]

I think that that article might have misstated or misrepresented the actual facts with respect to this issue.

FEMA and (to a lesser extent) the Red Cross have been giving out $2000 debit-style cards to evacuees. They apply for the card, and get it some time later. This card is DESIGNED to be used to pay for food/water/shelter/etc. Necessities, basically...

However it's got a VISA (or whatever) logo on it, and is therefore legal tender at any store which would accept the cards. There have already been 2 louis vuitton (sp) handbags purchased with FEMA cards in Atlanta...

I guess I'm of the opinion that ANYONE could've seen this coming, and if you gove people 2 grand, even if they do NEED some things, they will still pursue things that they WANT, in addition to those that they NEED...

Rest assured, the Red Cross did not hand a crackhead 600 bucks and say here, go buy an engagement ring... Despite what the article IMPLIED... What ACTUALLY happened is that he was issued a debit card, and decided to use 600 bucks of it to buy a ring (If it makes you feel any better it was at a WAL-MART, so he probably got gipped anyhow).

I am indifferent with respect to this. People do all kinds of crazy shit. Personally, I say fuck it... The first thing I thought of was "If I had one of those cards, I'd buy such and such..." So either I'm no better than these people, or there is really nothing inherently immoral about it.

The decision to go with the cards was made to allow the INDIVIDUAL to decide what they need most for their survival... If some dude thinks he's better served by buying a ring, who am I to tell him differently?

Just my 2 cents, and again, will probably be an unpopular view...

Steve

[Kaidy Mae]

Awww, thanks guys. Knowing that this makes other people just nuts makes me feel a little better. No one at my office understood my frustration at all. Why I'm surprised at this is also frustrating. Hahaha.

I hear ya, LM, about keeping things at the grassroots level. I have my charities that I support because they are small and the money raised is responsibly spent. With Katrina I figured I'd pitch in. Good neighbours do that. Now I'm livid with myself for giving money to the richest, most selfish nation on earth when there are so many others who could better use that money.

I can't believe I pitched in for some jackass to buy a $600 engagement ring! :mad: It saddens me to think what kind of difference $600 could have made to a child on the other side of the world (not to mention that man's unborn child).

[Steve from Cleveland]

Now I'm livid with myself for giving money to the richest, most selfish nation on earth when there are so many others who could better use that money.

Well, I dunno about all that. Because the status of the NATION is not indicitive of the status of the people you intended to get the money... You didn't give thinking that Bill Gates was gonna get the money, you had hoped that evacuees would get it, i.e. the ones who needed it.

And ultimately, they did. They (this one in particular) just happened to decide that the amount HE was alotted afforded him enough extra to purchase an engagement ring for his fair lady. See my above post if you haven't already...

Anyhow, I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse, but a large portion of your gift to the Red Cross went to paying admin salaries/costs and NOT to the evacuees, anyhow...

Steve

[Kaidy Mae]

Rest assured, the Red Cross did not hand a crackhead 600 bucks and say here, go buy an engagement ring... Despite what the article IMPLIED... What ACTUALLY happened is that he was issued a debit card, and decided to use 600 bucks of it to buy a ring (If it makes you feel any better it was at a WAL-MART, so he probably got gipped anyhow).

Wal-mart?!? :mad: Fuck! In NO WAY does that make me feel better. If anything, worse! Great, donated money not only went to support an evil corporation (who regularly violates labour laws), but it bought a shitty ring to boot! *eye rolling*

I don't think the article implied that the Red Cross handed him $600 and a jeweller's business card. I think the article clearly states that the survivors were given money to spend on what they found necessary. I had hoped that the small amount I was able to donate would be able to help someone. I don't see how an engagement ring is going to "better serve" anyone. These are people who ignored an evacuation order. Why should they be given such luxury when other people in their own city have to go without food and lodging? Shit man, I could've kept my coin and put it towards my rent, my dietary requirements or even my future nuptuals! I didn't. I wanted to help. Now I just feel like a fool!

So either I'm no better than these people, or there is really nothing inherently immoral about it.

Dude, aren't you studying ethics? How can buying Louis Vuitton bags not be immoral when people around you are starving?

[secondtube]

its the American Way.

[Kaidy Mae]

Well, I dunno about all that. Because the status of the NATION is not indicitive of the status of the people you intended to get the money...

If any nation on the planet should be able to help out their own it is the grand ol' US of A. The livelyhood of its own citizens should outweigh the importance of combat for EVERY nation.

a large portion of your gift to the Red Cross went to paying admin salaries/costs and NOT to the evacuees, anyhow...

Which is why I donated more than I normally do (not to mention more than I can afford right now).

[Tooly]

its bullshit either way you cut it i say

[SmoothedShredder]

I think it's sad that someone would take advantage of a system like that. Lets hope the marriage works and they stay off crack. Perhaps this could make some glorious contempary American novel. But in the States where things cost lots of Money, how else was the Red Cross going to respond? It was a bold move, but there are loopholes, espeicilly when the wall of beruacracy come down in response to the complaints about the slow movement of aid to NO was... If I was down there and needed a pile of money cause I had none (or it was all locked up in my home), I'd be damn happy to get a card instead of waiting in lines all day to have the Red Cross handing out rations... $2000 doesn't last a long time when you have to live in a hotel, or travel for weeks in that part of the world.

I thought the article had alot of positives... what else can individuals do? It was a treajedy, and not everything is going to be pretty.

I'm with Steve f.Clev on this. But I cannot disagree with Kaidys' point that the importance of it's own citizens should outweigh the importance of Combat (except when they are the same thing i.e. under direct attack from another nation), and they should have been able to handle this much more smoothly if the Iraq Attack was not currently underway.

~W

[Steve from Cleveland]

So either I'm no better than these people' date=' or there is really nothing inherently immoral about it.[/quote']

Dude, aren't you studying ethics? How can buying Louis Vuitton bags not be immoral when people around you are starving?

Well, first let me point out that there is an IMMENSE difference between morality and ethics...

That said, I'm STILL not sure about the morality aspect of it. These people were given cards, and told to use for whatever they deemed necessary. Because you and he disagree on what he should have spent the money on, does not necessarily make his action immoral. Moral behavior is said to be just or right behavior. If he was told to use the card for things he deemed necessary, and by his judgement, a ring was necessary, techically, he did not do anything unjust/immoral, despite our desire to accuse him of doing just that. We didn't tell them to use the card for things that WE think they need...

I am not here to say that what he did was RIGHT per se. But I am also being pragmatic when I say that I saw (and ANYONE could have seen) rampant 'abuses' of these cards coming. I'm actually HAPPY that he didn't put it in an ATM, get some crack, and smoke it up...

The bottom line is that if you give Average Andy 2 grand, and tell him to buy only what they need, he is also going to buy SOME things that do not fit that description.

For example. 2 grand for food clothing and shelter...

Evacuee 1 buys clothes at thrift stores, gives some away to others even... Eats at taco bell (or other cheap ass place) buys ramen noodles and pb&J sandwiches. Sets up a little food bank for others... Stays at knights inn (or wherever) for a couple of weeks while looking for a job... Makes the card last for 2 months or longer

Evacuee 2 goes to the mall, buys all expensive name-brand clothes, eats surf and turf for dinner, and stays in the finest hotel... Card lasts a week if that.

Both evacuees have done what was asked of them, they just have different ideas of the words need, important, etc... Both have used the card in the manner that was requested of them. What's the difference morally? Other than that we like to say that #1 acted more morally than #2...

But how can we make moral judgments when both acted in accordance with the terms of the card, so to speak?

Not to mention that there were no such restrictions (Food, clothing, shelter ONLY, etc) on these cards.

S/C

Edited September 21, 2005 by Guest

[bradm]

What the Red Cross should have done with those debit cards is a sort of "electronic food stamp" kind of thing: hook up with major retailers (e.g., Wal-mart, Target), and rig it so that the cards could only be used on certain items, such as food, clothing, house supplies (dishes, batteries), medicine, etc.: try to pay for a piece of jewelry (beyond, say, a basic wristwatch) with one, and it gives you an error. Items purchased with the card could only be exchanged or returned for credit, not cash.

Aloha,

Brad

[Jaimoe]

That makes almost too much sense BradM.

Instead, there's a kind of a student loan mentality going on.

[Steve from Cleveland]

A pragmatic solution, Brad... However, that was not done, so to turn around and then say that they 'abused' the cards is, to me, difficult. They were issued with instructions to use them on things they deemed important... And everyone has a different opinion of what is important.

Steve

Edited September 21, 2005 by Guest

[StoneMtn]

Well, first let me point out that there is an IMMENSE difference between morality and ethics...

Why do you say that Steve? If you're truly studying ethics, I presume you've read Kant and are familiar with his Categorical Imperative.

I subscribe to that view as being purely logical ethics, which is the basis for a system of morality.

How do you see the two as "immensely different"? I think that thinking of that nature leads to logical contradictions and excuses for immorality based on specious reasoning.

That said, I'm interested to hear your views and reasons for your comments.

[Hux]

.....um, dude was on crack.

I wouldn't look too far past that.

[Steve from Cleveland]

I guess I was coming from the perspective that morality tends to get into the right and wrong of human action. That is to say, that there are some things that ought to be done for every human being and some things that ought never be done to a human being...

Kant's Categorical Imperitive DOES kind of fit in with this notion. I.E. That a moral action is one that could be consistently willed to be done by all... that's the crux of it. If I say it's OK to steal to feed my starving family, I have to be wiiling to grant EVERYONE the right to steal to feed their starving family (EVEN IF that means stealing from ME).

Ethics, I tend to think of more as a 'professional code of conduct.' Perhaps its purely a sematic argument, but I personally think that all kinds of things are currently considered ethically permissible in business, which are, at the same time wholly immoral...

For example, the makers of Vioxx... To them, releasing the drug was permissibly ethically, because of the benefit generated DESPITE the inherent risk of their product to some people. What happens (everyday in the business world) is that the benefit to many FAR EXCEEDS the risk to some, to the point that the risk is deemed acceptable. So, this behavious is, technically, ethical... Is it MORAL, though? I don't know... Perhaps we should ask the families of some of the people that had strokes as a result of taking the drug...

Not to mention that Kant is certainly not the be-all end-all of either ethics OR morals... Personally, with respect to ethics, I take a coherence approach... That is, the aim of a useful ethical position is how well it holds together moral judgments and values. I feel that each ethical theory does have strengths and weaknesses, and I believe that no SINGLE ethical system can account for all possibilites or permutations. Esentially, there is NO ONE theory that adequately solves all ethical quandries, so we need to sort of combine certain aspects of many theories to obtain a coherent approach to ethics.

Edited September 21, 2005 by Guest

[peipunk]

A pragmatic solution, Brad... However, that was not done, so to turn around and then say that they 'abused' the cards is, to me, difficult. They were issued with instructions to use them on things they deemed important... And everyone has a different opinion of what is important.

Steve

IMO, if that's what they were told, than they should have been told to only use the card for "essentials"...namely, food and shelter. Some people might think its "important" to get their hair done. Publicity on these abuses (and no offense Steve, but opinions like yours) that are occuring will not help the Red Cross get more donations in the future.

[AdamH]

I learned on 7th Heaven that the current Food Stamp Program does exactly that: it uses a debit card.

I see something wrong with the stigma of handing another food stamp-like card to poor people who've lost their home. I see nothing wrong with handing cash to these people because for the other 99% of the population, they're going to use that money to get on their feet again. America thrives on commerce even if it means diamondia rings from Wal-Mart it will be classed under "re-building".

Of course I'm also the callous insensitive person who didn't donate to Katrina relief because he felt that the world's only superpower could probably find the few billion needed immediately almost as fast as the multiple billions GWB was able to access for the War in Iraq. Take it as you wish, I really don't think more money is needed to improve the situation, only better use of the money that's there.

I should add: Albertans, who last I checked were not under water, starving or even close to poor, are about to get $400 each for no fucking reason at all. Do you really think giving money blindly to poor homeless people is WORSE than giving it to fat white arrogant cowboys and whoever else lives in that province?

Edited September 21, 2005 by Guest

[StoneMtn]

Steve "Business Ethics" is essentially a trademarked term. I refer to actual metaphysical ethics. I am not referring to "risk management" and "cost-effective" "ethics" from a corporate perspective; such as in your VIOXX example.

(Examples like yours are the reason that car manufacturers don't recall cars that will cause injury and deaths, if the numbers show that it's cheaper to pay injury and death claims. Sure; it's "ethical" from a business perspective, but it's not an example of true ethics.)

Of course Kant isn't the be all and end all of ethics. That said, whose moral construct do you prefer? Schopenhauer's "World Will"? Spinoza (essentiall pre-Nietzschean "ethics"?) Aristotle who believed that there are certain people with the inherent right to be leaders while others are inherently slaves?

Kant may not be the end of the discussion, but I don't see anyone better. The best I have ever seen is contemporary Kantianism; ie. a development on the same thing. I find that the further afield you go from Kantianism, the further you get away from being truly ethical.

(The real criticism that should be levied against Kant is that it is nearly impossible for humans to adhere to his pure system of ethics.)

[bradm]

(The real criticism that should be levied against Kant is that it is nearly impossible for humans to adhere to his pure system of ethics.)

That, and he was a real piss-ant...

Aloha,

Brad

[ollie]

Now I'm livid with myself for giving money to the richest, most selfish nation on earth when there are so many others who could better use that money.

Isn't the USA heavily in debt? I would think China would be the richest nation on earth because of all there US investment. Anyone know which nation is? Saudia Arabia with the oil?

And don't let one crackhead and a bizarro government regime give the USA the title of most selfish nation on earth. Most Americans I've met have been just the opposite.

[Steve from Cleveland]

That said, whose moral construct do you prefer? ... Kant may not be the end of the discussion, but I don't see anyone better. The best I have ever seen is contemporary Kantianism; ie. a development on the same thing. I find that the further afield you go from Kantianism, the further you get away from being truly ethical.

(The real criticism that should be levied against Kant is that it is nearly impossible for humans to adhere to his pure system of ethics.)

As I stated in my last post, "Personally, with respect to ethics, I take a coherence approach... That is, the aim of a useful ethical position is how well it holds together moral judgments and values. I feel that each ethical theory does have strengths and weaknesses, and I believe that no SINGLE ethical system can account for all possibilites or permutations. Esentially, there is NO ONE theory that adequately solves all ethical quandries, so we need to sort of combine certain aspects of many theories to obtain a coherent approach to ethics."

Honestly, what's the point of a Kantian system that no one can adhere to? how is that useful to us, as humans? Ideally, it might give us SOME direction, but as far as an actual "Guidebook of Conduct" as you mentioned, it is not very useful. And that human failing should NOT be levied as an argument against Kant, or his ethical system, per se. Rather, it should be levied as an argument for why a Kantian theory of etchics is not PRACTICAL for humans...

Thus, the stance I subscribe to (although certainly not my own), that no single ethical system is suffiient... So the answer to your question of what moral construct I would prefer to Kant's is, confusingly, many of them...

Honestly, as a lawyer, you should be able to relate to this. The LAW, with its consequences and penalties isn't enough to keep people in line, ethically. No 'hypothetical' ethical theory (even if it was right on and useful in every situation) is going to MAKE people inherently BE, or even DESIRE TO BE, ethical creatures (sub moral for ethical if you like). All it WOULD do is give us a more fair way to punish offenders...

I hate to take such a Hobbesian approach to human nature, but it's hard not to...

EDIT TO ADD:

Steve "Business Ethics" is essentially a trademarked term. I refer to actual metaphysical ethics. I am not referring to "risk management" and "cost-effective" "ethics" from a corporate perspective; such as in your VIOXX example.

Bioethics, which is my area of concentration deals with ethical issues related to the healthcare industry/profession... This has many different facets, not all of which fall neatly into, what you call "metaphysical ethics." So when Kaidy Mae asked "Don't you study ethics." The short answer is YES, the Long answer is YES, but NOT the metaphysical ethics of which StoneMtn refers to, or to which Kaidy herself was likely thinking of. Granted, I HAVE studied that, as background, and historical surveys--but that's not what I am making my focus from here on out.

Mainly, because I find it interesting theory, but basically useless, practically speaking. Especially if you grant that no one is going to follow an ethical system even if ONE were found which would 'cover all bases.' Which is another point of contention...

Perhaps this explains why I might not be the best person to ask about broad 'metaphysical ethics.'

Why do I feel extremely cynical all of a sudden?

Steve

Edited September 21, 2005 by Guest

[peipunk]

And don't let one crackhead and a bizarro government regime give the USA the title of most selfish nation on earth. Most Americans I've met have been just the opposite.

I'm with ya there, Ollie.

Edited September 21, 2005 by Guest