Last week I donated for the tsunami via Amazon, but I didn't give that much and I knew I was being a bit stingy. After reading this post today on the ineffectiveness of the Red Cross, I went and gave a little more via World Vision. If you haven't given anything but still want to, perhaps Hugh Hewitt's endorsement will persuade you...
Posted by Sarah at January 9, 2005 09:16 AMAny comments about this?
Posted by: Sitzpinkel at January 9, 2005 09:23 AMYou might try Americares as a charity. It does good
work in all types of disasters and their overhead is extremely low. www.americares.org Thanks, rimholz
Just as an FYI, "World Vision" in Australia refused donations from a gaming company because they thought that gaming was evil or something like that.
That a charity would refuse $500,000 AU based on those principles I find disturbing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1275766.htm
Aside from that, though, they're an effective charity. Not as effective as "Save the Children", but...
http://www.savethechildren.org/radio_asia_earthquake.asp?StationPub=hp_radio_asia_earthq&ArticleID=&NewsID=
Posted by: Sean at January 10, 2005 03:29 AMWent to see "Mama Mia" today at the Civic Center. After the performance the cast members collected money for Save the Children. This is being done by all the theater companies who are performing "Mama Mia" throughout the world. Thought that was kinda' neat.
Your mama
Posted by: Nancy at January 10, 2005 05:16 AM