Justin Elliott and Jesse Eisinger at Pro-Publica write
How Fear Of Occupy Wall Street Undermined the Red Cross’ Sandy Relief Effort. An excerpt:
In the days after Superstorm Sandy, relief organizations were overwhelmed by the chaos and enormous need. One group quickly emerged as a bright spot. While victims in New York's hardest hit neighborhoods were stuck in the cold and dark, volunteers from the spontaneously formed Occupy Sandy became a widely praised lifeline.
Occupy Sandy was "one of the leading humanitarian groups providing relief to survivors across New York City and New Jersey," as a government-commissioned study put it.
Yet the Red Cross, which was bungling its own aid efforts after the storm, made a decision that further hampered relief: Senior officials told staffers not to work with Occupy Sandy.
Red Cross officials had no concerns about Occupy Sandy's effectiveness. Rather, they were worried about the group's connections to the Occupy Wall Street protest movement.
Three Red Cross responders told ProPublica there was a ban. "We were told not to interact with Occupy," says one. While the Red Cross often didn't know where to send food, Occupy Sandy "had what we didn't: minute-by-minute information," another volunteer says.
The three spoke to ProPublica on the condition of anonymity because they continue to work with the Red Cross. One says the direction came from an official based in Red Cross headquarters in Washington. Another understood the direction came from Washington. A third was not sure who gave the instructions.
The government-sponsored study that praised Occupy Sandy—written in 2013 for the Department of Homeland Security—also cites a prohibition: A Red Cross chief of volunteer coordination recalled that "he was told not to work with Occupy Sandy because of the affiliation with [Occupy Wall Street]," the study says.
Fred Leahy, a veteran Red Cross responder who was a Community Partnerships Manager in Sandy's aftermath, recalled a meeting a week after the storm in which he and two other officials, one from Washington, discussed "the political and donor ramifications of associating with Occupy Sandy due to its outgrowth from Occupy Wall Street." He says the meeting was called after an inquiry from Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern.
"Occupy Wall Street was not very favorably received by the political people in the city," Leahy says. Major Red Cross donors were from the same elite political circles "and they didn't understand Occupy Wall Street."
Red Cross responders says that many staffers and volunteers objected to the charity's stance on Occupy Sandy because among the Red Cross' fundamental principles is that aid must be delivered without regard to politics or ideology. "We are a neutral, humanitarian organization," one staffer says. "We don't take sides." […]
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2009—How does this happen?
So the House passed a $1.1 trillion budget, with $3.9 billion in earmarks identified. That's what, a third of one percent? But rather than defend or attack earmarks (they can certainly stupid and are oftentimes a vehicle for corruption), I'm more puzzled about this:
Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., secured $930,000 for maintaining exhibits at the Aerospace Museum of California in McClellan. "This is still part of the overall property that was essentially the Air Force base that was closed ... over a decade ago," Lungren said. "So this is part of the continuing process of making that whole area viable."
Lungren, who voted against the bill, said if all members gave up their earmarks he would do the same.
|
How the hell does one get money earmarked, yet still get that money after voting against the overall budget? He gets to go home, brag about the money he secured for his district, even though he voted against that money. Stupidity on that scale could only be invented in the US Congress.
Yet we've seen this time and time again this year -- Republicans gain concessions and water legislation down, only to then vote against final passage. A competent legislative body would trade such earmarks for VOTES. No vote, no earmark. Same with any policy concessions. Any concessions should be accompanied by actual votes.
But that would make sense and be smart. And if there's one thing we've seen in all too painful detail this year, that's not something Congress is designed to do.
Tweet of the Day
Deniers' Latest Attack on UN #ClimateChange Summit: Poor Countries' Delegates Show Up Just for the Per Diem -
http://t.co/... @lhfang
— @bdemelle
On
today's Kagro in the Morning show: Outgoing Rep. Paul Broun, after years of telling people to just take whatever McJobs they can find, says he's now accepting offers for fat cat corporate compensation.
Greg Dworkin explains how Broun might actually have become dumber, then rounds up headlines, which finally use the word "torture." The exploding cromnibus rider circus: pensions; truck safety; EPA cuts & nutritional standards; Wall St. bailouts; campaign contribution limits; DC pot laws; even light bulbs and ACORN! Harvard prof's crazy Chinese food war. Kochs invade public schools. Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) blames Obamacare for her husband's death.
High Impact Posts. Top Comments