PayPal Blocks Hurricane Relief Funds

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

September 4, 2005, 8:40 PM

It's no secret that the widespread destruction of Hurricane Katrina was exacerbated by delayed relief efforts, but the latest victims of bureaucracy are those individuals simply trying to help out. Humor site Something Awful raised almost $28,000 in less than 9 hours - right up until PayPal froze the funds.

Something Awful's dedicated community may call themselves "goons," but they have historically been quick to respond when needed. The site previously raised $22,000 to fund armor plating for soldiers in Iraq. And the disaster unfolding in New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf coast was no exception.

With its main Web servers located in downtown New Orleans and offline due to flooding, Something Awful founder Rich Kyanka asked visitors to donate to the Red Cross from a temporary page explaining the situation.

"Some people are emailing me, asking if they can donate to SA to help with our server move and downtime and temporary hosting and stuff. Don't worry about us, we'll be fine," Kyanka wrote. "If you really want to make a difference, donate to the SA Red Cross Relief Fund link above. They need it more than we do."

Unable to take credit card payments directly due to his site being down, Kyanka set up a PayPal account specifically to handle the effort. Donations poured in at a rate of almost $3,900 per hour - an astounding number from any perspective.

That is, until PayPal shut down Something Awful's donation account late Saturday evening. Because PayPal's customer support was closed for the night, Kyanka was unable to discover why $27,695.41 in Red Cross relief funds were locked. PayPal's automated system explained that it had received "more than one report of suspicious behavior from your buyers."

In the interim, Something Awful directed visitors to donate directly to the Red Cross. Kyanka said he originally setup Something Awful's own fund so he could send free merchandise such as hats and t-shirts to those who donated.

Explaining the situation on Something Awful's temporary Web site, Kyanka exploded: "It's not me you're hurting; it's the thousands of goddamn people with no homes, no money, and no hope fleeing a burning, flooded wasteland they used to call "home." I wasn't going to take a single cent of the donations, unlike PayPal, who decides that when people send money to help victims survive a national disaster, their company should still make over 2.35% of everything sent in."

Kyanka reached a PayPal customer support agent Sunday morning and was asked to fax in a driver's license, bank records, credit card records, and a written request to unlock the account. He was told it generally takes 3 to 5 business days to process the documents.

Another PayPal representative called Kyanka Sunday afternoon, offering to help resolve the problem. However, she also delivered some bad news: PayPal was unable to directly donate to the Red Cross. Due to prior agreements, the United Way is PayPal's relief organization of choice.

After initially agreeing to the charity swap, members of the Something Awful community questioned the United Way's record. And with no word of when the donations would be freed, Kyanka contacted PayPal and "asked them to refund everybody's money."

"All I tried to do was raise money and personally reward people for donating in a time of need, and it turned into a smoldering, twisted, burning car wreck along the highway. I'm beyond apologetic this did not work out the way I planned, but the pure hassle PayPal has given me trying to raise money just isn't worth it, especially when it could take over a week for the money to be unfrozen," Kyanka wrote in a final update.

"Please donate using the Red Cross link up top. I can't send you guys any free stuff, but I promise I'll sit here in my basement with the lights off, drinking a beer by myself and thinking of you."

Add a Comment (226 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By jumpseller

edited Sep 20, 2005 - 1:03 PM

Paypal.com just removed 400.00. from my account. They stated that it was pending. When I go to my account, It states that the account was settled. When I contacted Paypal.com they inform me that I should contact them in two or three months to see if I should get my money back. Where is the justice? - Where are the law makers? - I don't care how Paypal.com runs its modus operandi, however, People are getting hurt daily using their service.

Score: 0

By xanadu324

edited Sep 15, 2005 - 8:19 PM

Paypal's way of doing business is absolutely absurd. I may just transfer my funds elsewhere. Thank you Kyanka for showing what corporate wh***s paypal is, and I do hope they lose business for this.

Also, WHO are they to say who you can transfer funds to? If I want to donate to the Red Cross, I'm not allowed because they said so? That is absolutely unbelieveable, what next? I can't transfer funds to a friend because she's black?

Score: 0

By AaronZ

edited Sep 7, 2005 - 5:51 AM

I believe that what was done here was done in pure humility and in no way to gain from it. But what PayPal did, makes me want to look elsewhere to do my business. They were completely wrong and ignorant in doing this. I see nothing right or correct about what PayPal did. I commend the owner of SA.com. He deserves better than this.

So people, are we going to rise up against PayPal?

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 8, 2005 - 2:19 AM

No, I'm keeping my account and I will continue to do business with them.

Score: 0

By starjax

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 10:21 AM

Be carefull when you question united way's practices. While they have an overall organization that goverens them, most united way chapters are run locally. that means if you have a question about practices and track record you need to question the local chapter. I have had direct experience with them at two different chapters. The first time as a benificiary and the other as a supporter.

Score: 0

By d1g1tal_ph3rr3t

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 6:48 PM

Another example of corporate ignorance (PayPal) in not allowing their PayPal members the freedom to choose which relief organization the members want their donations to be sent to using their Paypal service.

When will corporate stupidity and ignorance end? I guess not in my lifetime.

This article gives me the info (and I hope you as well) I need to make a more educated financial business decision and an opportunity to watch PayPal more closely.

PayPal has a lot of explaining to do if they want to continue their business and to fix the "One Complaint/Account Lockup" procedure if they want me as their customer. If they don't, I will find somebody else who is cheaper, offers better service and better benefits.

D1G1TAL_PH3RR3T

Score: 0

By brunoco

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 4:42 PM

Typical paypal, time we find another solutions.
Paypal is badly managed company. They coul dhave delt with this case totally different and more professional.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 4:25 PM

http://www.betanews.com/...ina_Disaster/1125604622

When you read this post, you will understand why PayPal did what they did. If you don't understand after reading it, READ IT AGAIN. If you still don't understand, then you don't want to understand. PayPal has some major issues, but on this particular issue, they were correct.

Score: 0

By chillcool68

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 5:22 PM

yes, i understand perfectly, the fact remains, the understanding was the money was going to red cross or even united way, so then why couldnt paypal not handle that, they have the money remember that, not some hacker.. So back off,, everyone is entitled to there point of view, dont have to get all piss assed about it..

Score: 0

By chillcool68

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 3:36 PM

Well, i cant seem to understand why paypal didnt respond quicker to the matter at hand, fine they locked the account, ok, protecting other peoples money, that is good, but in the same sense, from what i understand is that they were aware it was for red cross, ok, case in point, get on it, and see what is really going on and get the money out, dont lock it and seem to blow it off, especially in a time of need for so many people, me having my own business, would have personally handled it,,and made damn well sure there was a solution and action asap, so now more people can suffer, due to someone else who isnt suffering, give me a break,,,,,,

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 4:26 PM

They don't care who the money was INTENDED for. The problem was whether or not the person soliciting the money was a fraud. That's very plain and simple. Look at this post, and tell me PayPal was acting heartless.

http://www.betanews.com/...ina_Disaster/1125604622

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 8, 2005 - 2:17 AM

If I might offer a suggestion, don't allow yourself to be sucked in by false arguments.

It's not PayPal's job to "care".

It's PayPal's job to provide a service according to it's rules, contractual obligations, and to some degree it's judgement regarding liability and fraud.

If someone truly believes PayPal has breached their contract, they have several options; civil suit, find another company with which to do business, find another means to accomplish the transaction, etc.

Of course complaining and making irrelevant claims are also an option, but they are among the most ineffective options. That being the case, let your opponent waste his/her time with ineffective methods.

Score: 0

By brunoco

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 4:35 PM

That post doesnt proof anything PAYPAL had a heart. The account setup was known to be LEGIT ! they could have had someone wtaching even over these transactions and made sure the account kept working. Typical Paypal they didnt care

Score: 0

By dsmart

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 2:38 PM

This *is* PayPal we're talking about, so why am I not surprised. This company is just a moving car wreck; and if the recently settled $6m lawsuit is any indication, they're on their way out. This is ridiculous.

For more info on PayPal's shenanigans, you don't have to go very far. Just read about the lawsuit settlement, other acts of tomfoolery etc, at the URL below.

http://www.paypalsucks.com

Score: 0

By tremens

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 1:10 PM

paypal is a faceless machine, yet people can't stop feeding it. red cross is who you see the most of if you ever take part in relief efforts for any natural disaster in this country, so talk s*** on the united way all you want, but the red cross is there. i've seen it with my own eyes.

Score: 0

By ServerMechanic

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 1:50 PM

Agreed.

Google is a faceless machine also.....yet people keep feeding the beast.

Google is the Devil.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 3:26 PM

You keep spouting off about how evil google is....and for some reason I have yet to see you give any reasoning as to *why* you think Google is so "Evil".

Give me just one example of Google being evil. Just one. That's all I ask.

Score: 0

By Earthbeat

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 12:08 PM

I was disgusted when I first read this. I copied the story (with attribution) on my Getting Things Done@yahoo.com list, and several other lists, as well as sending it to The New York Times and CNN. I hope other people will do the same thing -- let's get PayPal and United Way using common sense. After all, if former presidents Bush and Clinton can work together, surely to God PayPal and the United Way can allow other non-profits to receive disaster-related donations.

Daly de Gagne

Score: 0

By UTAKER

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 11:39 AM

As far as
"Bill Cobb
President
eBay North America"
He was very nice enough to still explain in detail.

As for PayPal, when you are running money transactions 24/7 and not in one particular country, then YOU HABE TO HAVE 24 HOUR QUICK CUSTOMER SERVICE and also someone deciding matters. It was a total disaster on behald of PayPal, and there is no excuse for that, even when it is about protecting money of people/fraud.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 10:00 AM

I think the below linked article succinctly identifies why this whole incident has been so disasterous.

http://tiadaily.com/php-...showArticle.php?id=1026

Score: 0

By M1M2Z1

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 11:14 AM

Think again.
Those welfare parasites are a necessary part of a contrived system.
Without them we wouldn't have a billion dollar private prison system, nor a billion dollar insurance/re-insurance industry, nor need millions of middle class attorneys to protect your rights/property.
The so-called welfare state exists for a reason and it is not necessary one of benevolence.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 8:00 PM

"Think again."

No need to.

Score: 0

By ServerMechanic

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 9:53 AM

The United Way is a joke.

Talk about a bunch of shady characters....who lie and steal.....

They are just a big business out to make money. They are more like Amway.

Score: 0

By PCCRomeo

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 7:12 AM

"...the United Way is PayPal's relief organization of choice."

I've never even heard of "United Way". And how can one relief organization be any different than another? The American Red Cross has been around a lot longer and I'm sure is a lot more wide spread. You don't go to WalMart.com or Apple.com and see them asking you to donate to United Way. This is just a way of the eBay company being more stubborn & difficult.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 9:46 AM

you have never heard of united way? Where have you been under a rock? United way is the biggest charitable organization in the WORLD. Yes, even bigger than the red cross. United Way has been helping people for decades.

Anyway, the United Way is a business. It accepts money on behalf of contributors, but they disseminate money where they see fit. Everyone thinks that collecting money is FREE. Where people get that idea, I don't know. It takes staff, electricity, funds, food, just like any business, to help sustain your people.

To keep the company in business, they take 12%. That means every 100 dollars, a whopping 12 bucks go to support United Way. The Red Cross is NO different. People have a very short memory, everyone remember 9-11? Yeah, that little incident with 2 huge buildings about 4 years ago.. yeah that, well the Red Cross took some 500 million dollars in donations. But the money wasn't intended to support 9-11, oh no. The Red Cross tried to divert money to other organizations, and only AFTER congress got involved did the Red Cross FINALLY agree to give 100% of the money given the victims to go the familys of 9-11. Incidentally, as much as 20% of those people STILL do not have their money..

Personally, I wouldn't give Red Cross a damn nickle. I don't trust them to do what they say. The United Way isn't a whole lot better, but at least they do more than the Red Cross.

Also, you don't watch any sports? The United Way runs ads 15 times a day, sports stars advertise "give to the united way...". I find it amazing you have never heard of the United Way. You must be blind or living in Iraq, because the United Way is HUGE.

Score: 0

By brunoco

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 4:36 PM

IT does not matter how huge a org is but its intent.

Score: 0

By smith288

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 8:21 AM

Both United Way and Red Cross have shady pasts with how they utilize the funds.

I, for one, cannot stand United Way especially how they label your giving into tiers. Nationwide Ins. basically force their employees into giving. Its very competitive for them to be such a "giving" company when they guilt their employees to death into giving. I donate on my own time and will not allow a company play games with me in terms of donating.

I stick to Salvation Army... One of the last true voluntary organization in my opinion. Many of those volunteers who make up the leadership of the organization making little or no money compared to Red Cross leaders who drive their BMWs and Audis.

When you make a business out of helping, it disturbs me.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 2:17 PM

I understand what you're saying about companies virtually "forcing" employees to donate to the United Way. Back in the 1970's I worked as a consultant for several companies where employees were pressured beyond reason, to donate a portion of their wages to the United Way. They'd be pressured into filling out a "payroll deduction" to the United Way and not doing so was hardly the way to enhance one's career. That finished me with them, as well.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 3:59 PM

Some of the older guys on my department also complained about mandatory participation in the United Way drives of times gone by. Now there's still a push, but the administration has backed off.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 6:45 AM

Here is the email response from PayPal, in respect to my letter of complaint in this matter.

Hello,

Thank you for writing to Bill Cobb. Bill has requested that I respond on
his behalf.

Just to clarify, Bill Cobb is the President of eBay North America's
Customer Support group; the current President of PayPal is Jeff Jordan.

There is inevitably going to be a lot of misunderstanding on the part of
people who don't understand PayPal's actions, so I would ask that you
keep an open mind over such a contentious issue. There is a lot of
misunderstanding and miscommunication, so I'd like to clear it up. Even
Rich Kayanka admitted that he can understand why PayPal would suspend
funds. The bottom line is that the action taken by PayPal undoubtedly
deals with the issue of fraud, although I am not entirely familiar with
the reasoning behind what has occurred, as I don?t work for PayPal.

A large amount of money began flowing into a brand new account in a
short amount of time. Mr. Kayanka doesn't mention whether or not he
informed Paypal of this, but it seems pretty obvious that he made a
significant mistake in assuming that thousands of dollars could simply
be collected and given away so easily. PayPal is not declaring anybody a
criminal; what PayPal is doing is making darn sure that people who send
money are not losing it, and believe me when I say that many more PayPal
users have had money saved than have been inconvenienced in this
anomalous situation.

Such a large flow of money into a new account would indicate that
something was unusual, to any rational person. I would also reference
other action that financial institutions will take: banks in some
countries are legally required to notify Government authorities when a
certain amount of money ($10,000 and up, for example) suddenly shows up
or is withdrawn from a bank account, due to fraud risks. Debit card
issuers will freeze an account after only two withdrawals of large
amounts of money, which could involve $1000 or less, due to fraud risks.
I once had my credit card provider freeze my card over a ~$2 charge when
I used the card for a phone call, because that was a common use of
stolen credit cards.

The issue of the United Way should not have come up, I believe the
PayPal representative either misstated, or misunderstood just what was
being requested. PayPal can't take action on a user's behalf, and this
includes donating any gathered money to charity on someone's behalf,
because if anything goes wrong PayPal is involved. I believe that the
person didn't clearly understand the request being made by Mr. Kayanka,
and gave incorrect information.

PayPal does not have any high and mighty feelings, it's just that there
was miscommunication and misunderstanding from the moment this effort
began. While people might cancel accounts and think less of PayPal, they
are doing it with far too little information to make a rational,
objective decision. You are welcome to cancel any and all accounts for
any reason you deem fit, but I would encourage you to listen to PayPal?s
explanation before you take action.

Lastly, the most important issue with such a disaster at this time is
how quickly the help arrives, not whether or not money is frozen in an
account. This situation of frozen funds is unfortunate, but there is a
rational explanation, and I have no doubt that PayPal will answer the
charges and do the right thing, based on what is legally possible.

If you have any more concerns, please let me know.

Regards,

Sloan on behalf of Bill Cobb
President
eBay North America
______________________________
eBay Inc.
The World's Online Marketplace

Score: 2

By Earthbeat

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 12:22 PM

OK, so now we have PayPal's side of the story, and that's good. I do question though how such a misunderstanding could have developed.

Nonetheless, PaylPal has a great opportunity to make lemonaide out of lemons, and act as a vehicle for people to make designated donations to disaster relief.

Score: 0

By drofnats

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 9:18 AM

I have tried to cancel my ebay account for several years, but while they have 'froze' it, they refuse to cancel it, so I am subjected to all the fraudulent attempts that are regularly made to ebay customers. I address this to ebay, please cancel my account as the above message says there is no difficulty doing.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 8:14 AM

I find this wholly contemptuous. Paypal makes a BIG speil when you sign up that they are not a bank or a financial institution. They cannot make that speil then in the same breath deliver this claptrap. Their ordinary daily monetary restrictions already in place are more than enough to handle outright fraud. Nowhere in their user agreement does there state a limit on new account actyivity (or established account activity for that matter) in relation to monetary amounts.
Fuirther, elsewhere in the comments is a great point. Paypal STILL takes their percentage cuts out of the funds transferred for this charity effort. Greedy if you ask me.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 7:35 AM

That's very good response. Thanks for posting it.

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 12:40 AM

PayPal did the right thing here not everybody goes to humor sites so theres a lot of people who don't know what something awfull is about so when suspicious activity happens they locked it down to investigate and if you read the article it mentions that someone did know what something awfull was about they phoned and offered to resolve the problem quickly. Remember there are a lot of scum bags out there more than willing to set up donation sites and keep the money so safe guards are needed.

Now for the part i get flamed many of you are pointing fingers at who to blame and it's not Bush the feds the state and the city when it's the people who decided to live there lets look at some of the facts they live below sea level and need levees and pumps just to keep dry and in an area where huricanes can hit so it was not a question of if but when this was going to happen and when it will happen again because the government will let them rebuild there.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 1:48 AM

They can rebuild there, just with better levees, as was done to improve the protections on the Mississippi River-- now they're ready for anything Mother Nature can throw at them. Also, look at Florida-- & not just the obvious money areas, but also the poor ones: they undergo way more storms, barrages of them, yet they evacuate & cope repeatedly.

At this point rebuilding is the ONLY option, not desertion. In fact, an FDR-type public works program: pay residents to fix themselves up-- would likely be a huge economic boost that may even permanently reverse the fortunes of some of those counties that have endured decades-long abject poverty. The alternative of condemning to worse lives the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of under-educated, country-drawl folk being moved to big cities of other states is just a recipe for creating additional welfare/Appalachia-type pockets of un-employable people that may actually worsen economic conditions wherever they go.

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 5:21 AM

Better levees would only help a bit unlike florda as you mentioned it's below sea level thats why they needed to use a combination of levees and pumps to keep dry.

As for the economy look at it this way these people will need housing construction jobs will be created they will need clothes and food more retailers and restaurants will open up more jobs there and some will open up their own buisnesses so the economy won't suffer as bad as you might think.

Guess i should have clarified a bit i don't mean abandon all the area down there but places most at risk because even with better levees and even better pumps this will happen again maybe not soon posibly years perhaps decades but it's certain another major huricane will hit the area and flood it again.

Score: 0

By robertguda

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 10:43 PM

wow, this paypal topic really did create quite a stir...lets just say its all just in the line of "natural" mistakes...I'll throw some oil on this particular fire: I am sure that if some arab group claimed this disaster, help would have been there before the hurricane had left. the country I live in at the moment still has victims of hurricane georges waiting for their share of help. (the RD= rep dom) millions donated have simply disappeared and live goes on. here the majority is poor and under educated. (also of african origin) and nobody gives a bloody cahoot. in the mean time they try to cope with life as it is.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 11:26 PM

Your country has beaches that have been called the most beautiful in the entire world. And it is a very desired vacation spot for many Europeans, Germans in particular.

Yeah, usually the biggest problem is not getting aid sent, but having it get to the most needing of it.

Whatever doesn't get pilfered...as we speak, in Africa, there are entire rotting warehouses of grain shipped from here in the states, while populations starve. One excuse in some countries is that since we genetically alter our crops, it's not healthy for them...another further & more insidious one-- some Idi Amin/Hugo Chavez-like strongman, to divert attention from his inadequate rule, embarked on a campaign to convince his populace that we have a dastardly plot ongoing: we poison the food aid we send them so that we can then weaken the men, enslave the rest, & take over their country to plunder its natural resources.

Impossible you say, how can rational folks fall for this? Well, if there's widespread belief in voodoo & witchcraft, then those folks will believe just about anything. When some epidemic hits a small village, most believe it's some witch's fault, so they'll burn alive some poor old lady they think is responsible.

Score: 0

By Moretorque

edited Sep 5, 2005 - 8:50 PM

Paypal locked the donation account on LS1GTO.com as well....

Score: 0

By ARC Employee

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 8:51 PM

I think eBay supports the Red Cross -- they did the Jay Leno tsunami Harley auction for us, and lots of other celebrity auctions for our benefit. Look:

September 01, 2005 | 12:46PM PST/PT

We at eBay are saddened by the continued damage to the Southeast United States as a result of Hurricane Katrina. As rescue efforts continue, we want to make it as easy as possible for the eBay Community to help.
We’ve set up several ways for you to donate funds to the relief efforts. You can buy or list items to support a relief organization with eBay Giving Works. A section of the eBay home page has been dedicated to relief efforts and information, and contains a link to our donation page on PayPal so that you can make a direct contribution to the United Way. You can also visit the Natural Disaster & Relief Information discussion board.

In addition, the eBay Foundation is making a $250,000 donation to the American Red Cross on behalf of the eBay Community.

Sincerely,
Rachel Makool
Director, Community Development

But it does say United Way as the only way to make a donation through PayPal. Strange.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 9:31 PM

FYI, PayPal is an eBay company.

That being the case, I suspect that all the users who cancelled their PayPal accounts will now cancel their eBay accounts. That would be the principled thing to do given the "evil" nature of PayPal.

Score: 0

By mjrpes

edited Sep 5, 2005 - 6:57 PM

I just terminated my paypal account. What a horrible company.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 10:14 AM

I agree with your comment.. however, in this case, Pay Pal is trying to prevent Fraud. I could start a website, and proclaim I am attempting to help victims of Katrina, but PayPal has no idea who I am and what I am capable of. So PalPal is trying to play law enforcement so that money collected on behalf of this agency is legitimate.

Personally, I have issues with PayPal myself so I think they do suck and they are evil, but for other reasons, but in this particular episode, they are trying to prevent fraud.

I live in Ga, and we have already heard of several people trying to collect money and they have already been nabbed for fraud, so PayPal is not totally off base by making sure that money collected for this purpose is going to the victims and not a part of a scam.

If paypal is the middle man, they would be held liable in a suit and they could be accountable for allowing someone to commit fraud. All they wanted is for this guy to PROVE his identity. I don't think that was asking too much. If he does that, then PayPal will gladly allow him to continue. They did not say he couldn't do, only that the money collected was for the purpose in the ad. That's it.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

edited Sep 5, 2005 - 6:16 PM

Everybody's blaming Bush, just like during the tsunami--while absolving the locals-- but whither/what/how the community, city, state leaders(with a full century's forebodings to boot?) Contrast this with Florida, or NYC-- take the latter:
(Giuliani had actually put in place beforehand disaster preparedness & state of the art command center that unfortunately got leveled with the towers) at a time when that wasn't in anyone else's radar screen) NY's been through three major blackouts + 9/11, without looting, shooting & mayhem.
Yes, in hindsight there's things 'everyone'-- locals & feds could've done different; but i remember wondering in the hours/days before what to do(it looked like an imminent direct hit, & I always had this in mind, having once lived down there)-- do you start amassing & transporting troops & volunteers by rail, land & sea in that direction, to have them ready to help right away? But what happens when the hurricane changes course(also spawns tornadoes) & those stationed nearby on land & sea, biding their time to assist, get wiped out?

Yes, we should learn from this & use it to be better-prepared in the future, & we better have at both the national & local government levels catastrophe cash & emergency supply reserves in hand-- just like we do with petroleum-- because we're in for worse incidents. And not just terrorism-- for one, the big earthquake will eventually hit California: a chunk of the state breaking off, with cities as far away as Las Vegas completely flattened.
Another thing is that we've all become obsessed with living right on the water-- right on the very top of it in fact: go to any of our coasts--south, east, west & you'll see how we can't possibly pile up anymore folks right on it: not just individual beach houses, but huge skyscrapers are built & crammed next to each other practically on a foundation of water, that's how close. We pay exorbitant prices for land on the water, that to boot gets eroded by the sea from season to season--necessitating expensive reclamation projects-- but oh, how we want that land, bidding up the prices despite & in inverse proportion to how fast it gets eroded away! We're really setting ourselves up for tsumanis & killer hurricanes-- there's an excellent piece in the latest Wired issue re how we're draining/clearing/leveling away forest/marshland/swamp/barrier reef-- the natural protectants against big storms-- in a rush & race vs the next person, to be even closer to the water.

Giuliani in NY had the presence of mind to be prepared way before disasters were on anyone's consciousness-- hopefully the Feds are following suit on the grandest scale possible.

Score: 0

By djkmoran

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 6:48 PM

New Orleans had a plan..they just FAILED to implement it!

City of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan

http://www.cityofno.com/...?portal=46&tabid=26

Score: 0

By nate

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 7:05 PM

Hard to implement a plan when your city is under 15 feet of water and you have 0 communications.

Hard to implement a plan when your jails and hospitals are not functioning and you have complete lawlessness in the city because of that.

Hard to implement a plan when your National Guard backup isn't even activated by the Feds until 24 hours after the hurricane hits.

There were a lot of failures here, but blaming the city of New Orleans is just sad.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 10:17 AM

Finally the voice of reason!!! I have been saying this myself. Everyone thinks about what's happening, but no one has an answer for how to fix it.

Score: 0

By djkmoran

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 7:55 PM

I agree, but everything you mentioned happened after the hurricane hit. I am referring to that part of the plan that is suppose to take place prior to the hurricane coming ashore.

I agree, there were alot of failures locally, statewide and federally and it should never happen again.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

edited Sep 5, 2005 - 10:59 PM

Yeah, states on the Mississippi River also had plans-- but what was really needed, higher & stronger levees, wasn't done until after a catastrophe struck.

It's always been a given that most of NO being under sea level, a big storm would inundate it, & possibly obliterate it entirely, depending on strength & directness of hit-- so part of the contingency plans should've been to setup further upstate/on high ground re deployment of command center/government in exile, if you will; along with adequate/realistic/mass-scale evacuation plans.

National Guard can only be called out by the individual state. This not being a case of war/mass riots, the Feds would have no authority to preemptively do so-- it is a 'union of united sovereign states and any power the federal government has is that which is granted to it by the individual states'. The governors of all potentially affected states should've mobilized the Guard AND asked for additional manpower from neighboring governors & the Feds in preparation BEFORE the storm hit.

God helps those who help themselves. I'm sorry, but you cannot blame government half a country away before you blame the whining/helpless & not-take-action government in the midst-- and even more, the populace who refused to leave & took the chance.
BUT, i only refer to those in New Orleans proper & who had the means to leave. There is abject poverty outside the city & in neighboring states, particularly in rural areas/tiny towns: folks live in the middle of nowhere, in rickety wooden shacks, with very little means of private or public transportation...just a simple trip to a supermarket, for instance, is a luxury & an event that needs to be planned-- unlike you or I that could go to one by ourselves, w/o having to depend on someone else to take us, several times a day if we wanted to. Such folks would face a dang tough quandary: IF they could hitch a ride out, where would they find the money to pay for it, to buy provisions, and to transport with them whatever they valued-- since what little they have that survived a storm would get stolen in their absence?

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 6:10 PM

I've never had any good experience with PayPal. They are a monopoly and they know it.

Recently my wife sold something on eBay. The buyer wanted the item to be shipped immediately, and she shipped it 2 days after the sell. The buyer reported to PayPal that they weren't happy with my wife's service, so PayPal froze our account "until the situation is resolved". I mean WTF? You sell something on eBay as an auction - you're not a retail store. PayPal had no right to freeze our money just because someone was being a baby and wanted an item RIGHT AWAY.

I've had plenty of other bad experiences with PayPal. They are incredibly arrogant and will find ANY REASON they can to keep YOUR money in THEIR account. They accrue as much interest as possible, then charge the consumers plenty of fees on top of it.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 6:25 PM

WWW.BIDPAY.COM

No monopoly here.

Score: 0

By The-One

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 5:58 PM

Well, since Bush caused the crisis in the first place, maybe your anger should be directed to him instead. I mean he does seem to have the the power of God at his fingertips by creating the huricane, then breaking the levee, then sending those poor people to an unspeakable hell for days.

Those poor people were failed by EVERY government member that is in power today, republicans and democrats alike! While I don't blame Bush directly, he does share a piece with everyone else. That mayor did NOT follow protocols for those poor people or provide adequate security, he had several days in *advance* to do this. FEMA's head seems to like to blame these poor people for their situation. Well, the stupid mayor told these people to go the Superdome!! BTW - I hope everyone blaming just Bush knows that the mayor allowed 500+ people to jump ahead of the bus line, coming from a hotel next to the Superdome. How much money have we poured into preparedness since 9/11? Where did that money go, as we have seen nothing to for it?

BTW - On the original subject - Paypal sucks, they provide less security than Microsoft. They are an identify theif's heaven.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Sep 5, 2005 - 6:34 PM

LOL @ the first paragraph.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 6:09 PM

Every hurricane warning I have ever seen, this one included, is proceeded by DAYS of warnings that it is life-threatening. Additionally, everyone was told in advance that if they decided to stay, they would be on their own, that no police, fire or paramedics would be able to assist them, even possibly for several days after the storm passed.

Those people failed themselves for not valuing their own lives enough to leave the area and seek safe haven.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 7:02 PM

Yeah because 100,000 poor people with no money, no cars, no family can easily just hop on the highway and get out of town...

Oh wait.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 7:23 PM

And I suppose that's the government's fault too?

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 8:24 PM

The governments job is to protect EVERYBODY, not just the people that can afford cars.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 8:22 AM

no, the government's job is to GOVERN people, not to protect them. Protecting everyone is not an option. the government is not there to protect people, but to legislate laws that make governing a large body of people in an acceptable manner that allows those people to live their lives under the prtotection of laws. Sorry, I feel bad for all those people out there but if you ask me, you cant be the brightest person in the world to live in a flood plane, have advance warning of a major amount of water to fall on your area and stay around to watch it. You live in a flood plane, you are prone to flooding. floods threaten, get the heck out. sorry, but life isnt a box of chocolates, life is harsh and doesnt survive morons long

Score: 0

By Niro

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 3:17 PM

The governments isn't required to protect people? Hm...that's funny, I thought a large portion of my taxes are paying of the government's employees salaries. They suddenly don't have to protect me? The military is just there incase the government decides they want to conquer a country? The military isn't actually there to protect me...this is all news to me, well that sucks...especially considering I'm paying them.

Tell me if you feel the same when your grandfather needs to evacuate only he can't afford any transportation and barely has enough money to live on....tell the guy to walk a few hundred miles and not croak.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 9, 2005 - 1:11 AM

You said, " The governments isn't required to protect people?"

That depends on whether you mean "the people" generally, or specific people in specific circumstances. You may be interested in looking up Castle Rock v. Gonzales on the US Supreme Court web site. The requirement to protect individuals may not be as all encompassing as you might believe.

Regarding the "grandfather" issue, a person's feelings may be largely irrelevant to the moral or ethical implications of a proper course of action. Emotions are the worst criteria upon which to base principles. Emotions are not tools of cognition, reason is. I suspect I stand alone on this point as well.

I could complain about any number of things that I'm being taxed for (or robbed by the government) that I do not wish to support. However, it would be a waste of bandwidth to discuss that in this forum, and it would not solve the problem.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 5, 2005 - 9:11 PM

That's non-sequitur to my question and comment.

Score: 0

By Niro

edited Sep 5, 2005 - 10:18 PM

lol...these are the pople that are responsible for running our streets...I hope your name is just a name and doesn't mean you're really a cop...;/

Once again, I know this must be very difficult for you to follow, but please try:

You said, "is it the governments falt that 100k poor people have no money, cars or family or any means of just leaving town".

I answered..."it's the governments responsibility to help people even if they can't afford to freely leave town on a whim".

Now, read over your comment and my reply, a few times if you have to, and rethink your "your respons=e doesn't apply to my comment", and maybe even come up with something educated to say.

Thank you, and good luck.

EDIT: After rereading my post, I'm afraid it may confuse you further, so let me help out just a little bit more:

It is not the governments fault that some people can't afford cars or have family outside of town, it is however, the governments responsibility to help these people out regardless.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 7:45 AM

I also forgot to mention that I think we operate on different definitions regarding the use of the word "whim". I don't consider leaving town because a Category 5 Storm is about to hit (only 3 others of which have struck the country) to be a "whim". I consider it to be a seriously substantial reason to leave because my life is at risk. I may not be able to financially "afford" to leave, but I find it less affordable to die.

For clarification:

whim ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hwm, wm)
n.

1. A sudden or capricious idea; a fancy.
2. Arbitrary thought or impulse: governed by whim.
3. A vertical horse-powered drum used as a hoist in a mine.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 11:26 AM

*ahem*

Since everyone's getting caught up on insignificant details:

(It was a Category 4)

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 9:04 AM

When you have no money, no car, and no family to go to, you tell me that you'll just walk your way 300 miles out of town because there's strong winds on their way.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 9:08 AM

Yes, if that's what it takes to save my life. You may value your life differently.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 11:11 AM

You have never lived in a hurricane target area have you?

If you did, you would know that that's impossible. Now you're just speaking out of your butt.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

edited Sep 8, 2005 - 4:08 AM

I addressed this in another part of the thread, but I do in fact live in a hurricane target area, and have most of my life.

I live in Va. Beach, VA, 8 blocks off the ocean front, 7 feet above sea level, in an area deemed a flood zone. We HAVE been hit with hurricanes and tropical storms numerous times throughout the city's history.

Plus, being a police sergeant in a neighboring city, I have to send my wife and son off to safe haven, and stay behind to help those people who choose to stay.

So no, I'm not "talking out of my butt" (a quite undeserved and uninformed comment). It's only impossible for those who choose not to act in time, or otherwise prepare themselves for this kind of eventuality.

That's something that people who don't understand the is/ought relationship will never understand. For everything a person learns, there is a relationship that must be formed between that knowledge and the pursuit of a person's continued existence on this planet. Failure to integrate that knowledge, and determine how it affects or can possible affect one's life can be deadly. One may still ignore a proper relationship with that knowledge in pursuit of values that one considers more important, but in doing so that person assumes some risk for which they have no legitimate gripe should the risk bare out.

Score: 0

By thirdoff

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 2:58 PM

No I never have lived below sea level or in hurricane zone and this is by design, choice, and hard work to maintain my quality of life. Only a moron or hard luck case would live there, or when it was time to get off their and improve, they couldn't be bothered. We'll they are bothered now! Honestly is it easier to walk 300 miles to safety or swim 300 miles to safety. You heard the warnings and you thought, it might not hit so I am not wasting time, effort or money on evacuating. Well to those folks, you gambled and lost.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 3:36 PM

I suppose everybody that lives anywhere you don't think is "optimal" is a moron? You don't live anywhere near water that can flood, mountains that can have mudslides or something, no nearby airports that have things flying over your house, nothing that can explode or break and damage your house...cuz you just don't want to take the risk right? No gas in your house, too much of a risk of exploding. After all, you're not a moron.

Score: 0

By thirdoff

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 4:17 PM

Yes they are morons, no I do not live near anything you listed.
An explosion in a home is caused by fault, whether it is human error or mechanical failure.
A hurricane is caused by weather (or God if you share my belief) and is NOT controllable. Living below sea level is 100% controllable (and MORONIC).
For the record, I agree we should help the ones who evacuted or tried, we need to help educate them so they understand how MORONIC it is to settle land below sea level and try to hold back the ocean. If they weren't there, there would be no disaster. The hurricane was coming no matter what.
Insurance doesn't hurt either, and I bet it is hard to get insurance at all when you live below sea level (that should have been a clue).
Seems silly to gamble in such below sea level regions to me. If you chose to try, please don't whine to me when you lose.

Score: 0

By Niro

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 10:03 PM

They are morons you say? The MILLIONS of people living by everything I mentioned are morons? I'm a "moron" for working in the WTC knowing it's an attractive terrorist target? The thousands that died there were also "morons", because they took a "risk"? Plane crash victims are "morons' for taking a flight...humans weren't meant to fly right?

Thank you, for your opinion...keep believing that god kills "morons" just for being..."morons".

I'll let the millions living in these "risky" places decide who the moron is....

Score: 0

By thirdoff

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 10:37 PM

These statements simply are NOT related in any way. Working in a building or traveling on a plane does NOT compare to blatently messing with mother nature and ruining wetland sediment to create the cess pool that is sinking N.O.. Now they have contaminated the gulf.
Also know that moronic does not mean ignorant or dumb. You are born dumb and ignorant just means you don't know any better.
Being a moron is being foolish to the point you act at the level of a child or simply do not have the mental capacity past a 10 year old. Case in point was your last comment. ;-)

Score: 0

By Niro

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 10:46 PM

Mother nature intended us to fly then? I don't have wings on my back do you?

The entire country is "moronic" because they allowed NO to be built in the first place?? You definetly smarter then the entire world...why aren't you leading the country again?? Why does a genius such as yourself waste time with "morons" on the internet? Shouldn't you be thinking up something to help the world be a better place. Maybe you can invent some kind of juice that'll make us all as smart as you...wishfull thinking I guess...:(

Maybe god will destroy NY next for being so close to water...why is he taking so long to sink Long Island? Those morons are living on an island over there surrounded by water!! Escape quickly...get your message to them asap they need to know before disaster strikes!!! Actually don't tell them, bunch of morons anyway for living on an island, they deserve to die....

Score: 0

By thirdoff

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 11:02 PM

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more related or closer to being right. It still is no where near the same.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 11:05 PM

Another brilliand reply, you're on a roll...

I guess it's true...when one discovers himself to be an inconsistent hypocrit...one begins to talk less.

In any case, I still applaud you for being smarter then america.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 6:57 PM

It wasn't below sea level when they settled it "moron." New Orleans used to be above sea level, and it has been an extremely prosperous port throughout U.S. history. So I guess the entire country is full of "morons" who forced those people to live there to support the port that held 1/3 of our oil refineries.

..."moron."

Score: 0

By thirdoff

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 11:14 PM

This is simply NOT true, they drained marshland to build it. A HUGE mistake and separate moronic topic itself. Please show me where N.O. was ever totally above sea level.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 7:12 PM

I hope your design, choice, and hard work serve you well during life. I really do.

Don't call everyone who lives in an entire region morons. You will tend to create enemies. I guess your *choice* will have to come into play there.

Your logic is flawed though in thinking that every possible scenario can be thought out flawlessly in real-time. I don't know what the reasons were (nor do I really care) for those people to stay. The point is, they need help.

Additionally, I think everyone is forgetting the people that DID leave. They are still without a home, separated from friends and their community, without all of their possessions, and without jobs. They played it smart, and still lost.

As I said. I really hope your design, choice, and hard work serve you well. But if they don't, you'd better believe there will be people there to help you despite your attitude toward others when they needed help.

***EDIT***
Originally posted Sep 6, 2005 - 3:14 PM

I notice thirdoff didn't respond to this comment even after responding to others...

Score: 0

By thirdoff

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 8:53 PM

My response would have been the same to you as it was to them. They were warned, they were warned NOT to use the island called the superdome. They did not listen. I don't want to be in someone elses flame war. You have every right to build you house on train tracks if you choose, just DON'T cry to me or any one for help when your house gets hit by a train and I WILL NOT pay to help after. If you would like charity to help relocate and you promise to get off your welfare A** instead of drain more resources from our economy, sure.

Score: 0

By Niro

edited Sep 6, 2005 - 10:35 PM

ahhh...theh classic "the poor don't deserve my help"..."the poor are poor by choice, get a job" arguments...This is a brilliant mind at work here, we got a real genius on our hands, you'll make it far in life after you get out of HS.

Score: 0

By thirdoff

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 10:46 PM

What are you saying, they are poor not by choice but because their region doesn't have any resource to create an economy for the masses of non-educated, non-motivated, non-inovative, "easy street", show your boobs mentality???? Hmmmmm!

Anyone in need no hand-outs but I have a guest room for rent and I can employ one person if they have a high school education and are willing to be trained. The room will be available for 3 months which is more than enough time to budget and save money for an apt of your own. The job will be available as long as you can be responsible stay of the crack pipe or bottle or whatever is holding you "poor". And yes it is that easy, "you wanna eat - you GOTTA WORK!"

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 10:53 PM

Ah, you figured out why the poor are poor...go to a poor city and tell them that, I'm sure they'll appreciate this advice. I mean, I'm sure they haven't thought of getting a job...nahh no way.

Tell the lady working 3 jobs supporting her two kids that if she had a 4th job maybe she could of saved enough money to get a car and drive off into your fantasy land where everybody can get a job and it's all "easy", just as long as you're not lazy or smoking crack.

Wake up son, the world isn't as friendly as your parents bank....especially when you have no money in the first place.

Score: 0

By thirdoff

edited Sep 7, 2005 - 1:43 AM

I would tell the lady she shouldn't have had the kids if she didn't want to support them, was she married or is daddy drunk in Bourbon Street gutter. EVERYTHING you are using as arguments are CHOICES, water below sea level is NOT a choice it is a physical fact. RUINING the world and the replenishment of wetland sediment to the point of sinking, death and coastal contamination just because a few MORONS didn't like change is also now a physical fact. They tax cigarettes so much because of the drain on our economy and they now charge the morons that climb mountains then get stuck then call 911 for helicopter rescue. Living in a danger zone below sea level is the same but we still have to pay for morons that do that. Worse, their children and elders have to pay with their lives. Please understand I have sympathy for the families of the lost. I pray they don't make the same mistake again given the choice. I also have donated my time and services in disasters. I also feel sorry for people that won't get help or resource because it is 'used up' over and over again on people that want to thumb their nose at physics and common sense.

Score: 0

By thirdoff

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 11:04 PM

Bing! Bong!

Score: 0

By itanshi

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 9:53 AM

the government failed to bring busses, the state failed, the city failed

walking? yer nuts, some of these people are handicapped. If these people were to leave at all, th ebusses should have been there weeks in advance.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 10:09 AM

I guess that's why people like me don't get caught in disasters like that. We don't expect the government to do everything for us.

I'll stay "nuts" in that case. Thanks.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 6, 2005 - 7:30 AM

I'm not sure why you find this a humorous topic with your "lol". Drop the insults, they don't win arguments.

If you follow this sub-thread up to the topic in which I made the statement you paraphrased, you will see I was responding to a claim of the government "failing" the citizens. At no point in this sub-thread, nor in this entire thread in fact, have I