Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Randomly jumping on a flight into Japan to wander around asking people in English if they need help is obviously stupid. But that's not just stupid for Japan, that's stupid for pretty much everywhere. Pointing out its stupidity isn't useful - people who would do that aren't listening to you anyways - so why conflate that sort of behavior with simple, non-disruptive, non-panic-inducing actions like donating money to the Red Cross? Or why contrast it with requests like "send nuclear expertise and helicopters", which everyone who meaningfully could and would is already doing?

After Katrina, Japan donated $200k to the US Red Cross, made $1m worth of supplies available, and private donations from Japanese companies and individuals went over $13m. The US certainly wasn't short of food or money, so why did they bother?

A $50 donation to the Red Cross will potentially help. Earmark it for their general fund, and if they really don't need it for Japan, they'll spend it somewhere else. This is such a bizarre thing to have to defend.




they'll spend it somewhere else

"Spend it somewhere else" was exactly what I wrote in my blog post, but when the New York Times says "We can give you three hundred words" then Priority #1 is "Don't Panic" and Priority #Left_On_Cutting_Room_Floor is explaining to people how relief organizations actually operate.


"Everything you actually could do is worthless to us, but please send all possible help for this scary thing that you don't understand and can't possibly actually assist with" is the opposite of "Don't Panic". It conveys helplessness and disempowers your readers.


That's the opposite of how I read that. I take it as a comfort that they're doing their best, and they're the best at what they're doing. If they needed food or money, I would gladly send it, but he's saying they don't. Great!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: