Fires in Oz

[jaF0]

You limit how and where they can apply it. If a house burns down, should a relief agency be able to deny assistance based solely on the beliefs or lifestyle of the owners/occupants?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Points taken.

I see what they do do in terms of getting aid out to the needy as a positive thing - and in that sense they get on with it and do it well.

They do, but they also contribute to some of the environment that creates that need in the first place. One of the big causes of youth homelessness is still "parents kicked their kid out for being queer", and when the SA uses their considerable social clout to lobby for stuff that keeps queer people as second-class citizens, and against programs that combat bullying of LGBTI kids... it's all a bit "give with one hand and take with the other".

And at the other end of life, LGBT elders are also disproportionately likely to be vulnerable and in need of the kind of services the SA provides, due to the economic consequences of a lifetime of discrimination.

Put it this way, if an organisation was feeding bushfires and then providing support for bushfire victims, we probably wouldn't be applauding their generosity.

But you're right - what an organisation doesn't do or won't do is also a factor in how you interact with them.

I guess, but I'm mostly talking about stuff they do do - public statements, political submissions - that contributes to marginalising LGBT people.

That, and the whole "abusing kids and punishing those who tried to report it" bit.

But we live in a country with freedom of religion and freedom of speech (and with that comes discrimination), so what do you do? Ban belief?

People can believe what they want, but when an organisation is still lobbying for the right to discriminate in hiring on religious grounds, for the right not to hire their halls out to queer people, and also just got busted for decades of child abuse, some of us might choose not to celebrate them, and to direct our charity donations elsewhere.

Side note: we don't have freedom of speech in Australia. There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, and there are laws that significantly restrict what we can say in some areas - cf. "Witness K", the Pell suppression order, this mystery prisoner, for instance, combined with some fairly pointy defamation laws.

There is an implied freedom of political speech, but that's about it.

(I am not saying this situation is a *good* thing, BTW. Just that when we're enthusiastically squelching speech in those other areas, it's hard to buy a "free speech" argument for why my fundie co-worker should be granted protection to preach in the workplace about how the gays are all going to burn in hell - which is part of that proposed "religious freedom" legislation that the Salvos are backing.)

 

[BelleCanzuto]

People can believe what they want, but when an organisation is still lobbying for the right to discriminate in hiring on religious grounds, for the right not to hire their halls out to queer people, and also just got busted for decades of child abuse, some of us might choose not to celebrate them, and to direct our charity donations elsewhere.

The Salvation Army has pretty much won that right in the US, or was lobbying hard enough for it that my assumption is they won. It's the reason I don't donate to them, not even the ubiquitous bell ringers at every grocery store around Christmas. I figure there are plenty of nonprofit organizations that I can send my money too.

Lots of people have complaints about the way the Red Cross (at least in the US) spends its donations, but I trust them and they do have tons of experience in disaster relief. (they're who I worked with when I did disaster mental health counseling for a while). And there is a robust bureaucracy there, but they don't discriminate and they play by the same non profit rules that everyone else is supposed to.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Ah well, I donate to the Salvation Army and a couple of other religious—based charities precisely because they have strongly held beliefs that they affirm and stick to, meaning you can trust them a lot more than the others. So many “charities” are top heavy bureaucracies that waste money - the CEO of the US Red Cross for example is paid a salary of $600k+ which is a ridiculous amount. And don’t get me started on some of the other charity scams. Some of them are generous enough to get about 10% of the funds they raise to what they say they’re fund raising for. The rest goes to salaries, perks, fund raising and feel good be. Nope, Salvation Army is great.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Ah well, I donate to the Salvation Army and a couple of other religious—based charities precisely because they have strongly held beliefs that they affirm and stick to, meaning you can trust them a lot more than the others. So many “charities” are top heavy bureaucracies that waste money - the CEO of the US Red Cross for example is paid a salary of $600k+ which is a ridiculous amount. And don’t get me started on some of the other charity scams. Some of them are generous enough to get about 10% of the funds they raise to what they say they’re fund raising for. The rest goes to salaries, perks, fund raising and feel good be. Nope, Salvation Army is great.

Yes the knock on the Red Cross is that their CEO makes too much money. But her compensation is comparable to that of other CEOs of major non profit organizations. And it's just not true that only 10% of donations go to their programs.

From Charity Navigator re the American Red Cross:

Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses 89.4%
(Percent of the charity's total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 89.4%
Administrative Expenses 4.0%
Fundraising Expenses 6.4%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.19
Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.25
Program Expenses Growth 3.0%
Liabilities to Assets 51.1%


Charity Navigator couldn't even rate the Salvation Army because of their religious exemption from the IRS, but I found this: Salvation Army executive salaries
The average Salvation Army executive compensation is $235,189 a year.The median estimated compensation for executives at Salvation Army including base salary and bonus is $234,307, or $112 per hour. At Salvation Army, the most compensated executive makes $700,000, annually, and the lowest compensated makes $50,000.

And this: 82 cents of every dollar donated to The Salvation Army goes toward program services.
From here

So, maybe the Red Cross isn't so bad after all?

I remember after the 9/11 telethon so many people got bent out of shape because some of the donations didn't go to 9/11 victims. Donations went into the Red Cross's general fund and were used all over the county for disasters. It started this whole meme that the Red Cross is bad with money and spends all your donations on their executives. It's just not true, though.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Yes the knock on the Red Cross is that their CEO makes too much money. But her compensation is comparable to that of other CEOs of major non profit organizations. And it's just not true that only 10% of donations go to their programs.

A lot of the non-profits and ngo aid organizations overpay. And I don’t exempt the SA. I just trust religious charities rather more.

 

[TxRad]

I think I can afford the boat but not the shipping.

Last I heard, you guys were down to 130 fires. They say that is an improvement but...

 

[Rustyoznail]

Last I heard, you guys were down to 130 fires. They say that is an improvement but...

To save on overheads, we’ve consolidated multiple small fires into bigger ones...

Seriously though, some have reduced dramatically but this weekend is going to be another stinker. Wait and see how the prep works handle it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Good news is that our Prime Minister is ON IT: https://twitter.com/OliverJPocock/status/1214827335888715778

 

[Rustyoznail]

Good news is that our Prime Minister is ON IT: https://twitter.com/OliverJPocock/status/1214827335888715778

We need a face palm emoji... Geez.

 

[ChloeTzang]

We need a face palm emoji... Geez.

What can one say? We could send you Ivanka. She’s good with the hugs

 

[ElectricBlue]

Good news is that our Prime Minister is ON IT: https://twitter.com/OliverJPocock/status/1214827335888715778

For fuck's sake. He really does need to get new staff.

 

[Rustyoznail]

Once an ad man, always a ad man.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Good news is that our Prime Minister is ON IT: https://twitter.com/OliverJPocock/status/1214827335888715778

HolyJesus, the idiocy, It burns, it BURNS.
I second Chloe's idea to send you Ivanka. Actually, we'll throw in Jared for free, to save on the overhead. Don't worry about sending them back.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Firestarters

There are some misleading claims going around on social media, to the effect that around 200 arsonists have been arrested this bushfire season.

In fact, only 24 of those are charged with deliberately setting fires; I think that's fairly typical for a fire season, though I haven't found numbers to compare.

The rest? Carelessness and stupidity. Making a cooking fire or lighting a barbecue on days of total fire ban. Dropping cigarette butts. And so on. Obviously still dangerous, but one has to wonder why certain people want to exaggerate the role of deliberate arson in all this.

A contact of mine who works in fire management tells me that arson is less common on days of extreme/catastrophic fire danger, because arsonists want a fire they can enjoy, not one that's likely to kill them.

Meanwhile, Vic and NSW rural fire chiefs have chimed in on hazard reduction burns, stating that HR has very little effect on fire spread in bad conditions like we've seen recently, and that the major limitation on HR is not "green tape" but finding safe conditions in which to do it:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...not-a-panacea-for-bushfire-risk-rfs-boss-says
https://www.smh.com.au/national/haz...not-the-panacea-rfs-boss-20200108-p53poq.html

Shane Fitzsimmons (the NSW RFS chief in those articles) isn't kidding about the risks of doing hazard reduction in the wrong conditions; his father was a firefighter who was killed along with four others when a HR burn got out of control.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

There are some misleading claims going around on social media, to the effect that around 200 arsonists have been arrested this bushfire season.

In fact, only 24 of those are charged with deliberately setting fires; I think that's fairly typical for a fire season, though I haven't found numbers to compare.

The rest? Carelessness and stupidity. Making a cooking fire or lighting a barbecue on days of total fire ban. Dropping cigarette butts. And so on. Obviously still dangerous, but one has to wonder why certain people want to exaggerate the role of deliberate arson in all this.

A contact of mine who works in fire management tells me that arson is less common on days of extreme/catastrophic fire danger, because arsonists want a fire they can enjoy, not one that's likely to kill them.

I saw an article in The Guardian either yesterday or today to the effect that part of the "blame arson" theory was driven by bots and other intentional disinformation strategies.

 

[jaF0]

As I recall, Prescribed Burns have created quite a mess a few times in the US when they got away from the teams.

 

[ChloeTzang]

HolyJesus, the idiocy, It burns, it BURNS.
I second Chloe's idea to send you Ivanka. Actually, we'll throw in Jared for free, to save on the overhead. Don't worry about sending them back.

Oh no, we needIvankaback - after Don, Don Jr and Eric finish their 8 years each, it’ll be Ivankas turn: - we need her back by then.

Saw some photos of Kangaroo island and just about cried. We went for a day hike there and it was so beautiful, and to see the effects of the fire there.....

 

[ElectricBlue]

Caring for Country

Some of you may have seen expression "caring for country" in the context of these fires. It's the indigenous land care practice, treating country with reverence and humility.

This is a good introduction:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01...ning-method-has-benefits-experts-say/11853096

Scroll down, there's a ten minute video showing it in practice.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I saw an article in The Guardian either yesterday or today to the effect that part of the "blame arson" theory was driven by bots and other intentional disinformation strategies.

Arson is one of the acknowledged causes of fire lighting, along with lightning, power line and machinery sparks, and fuck-wits who ignore total fire bans. Cigarette butts thrown out of car windows, anyone? That'll do it.

Every police force in Oz activates an annual arson watch program to put surveillance on known arsonists, most of whom are kids, mentally ill folk (including bizarrely, ex fire fighters) - anyone with a track record. They're not the only source of fires, but I've seen half a dozen news stories recently about arrests and convictions. As Bramble notes, the numbers are roughly the same one year to the next. Most of the time it's lightning strikes, negligence and stupidity, not malicious action.

The thing about these big fires, especially with high winds, is that they can spot 5 - 10km ahead of themselves. I recall watching a fire in Sydney, back in the nineties, where there was a row of about forty massive gum trees running along a river corridor - in about five minutes we saw each canopy explode, one by one, as sparks ignited the vapour surrounding the leaves. The fire would have travelled about five kilometres in those five minutes, I reckon - it was like watching a series of bombs going off.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Arson is one of the acknowledged causes of fire lighting, along with lightning, power line and machinery sparks, and fuck-wits who ignore total fire bans. Cigarette butts thrown out of car windows, anyone? That'll do it.

Every police force in Oz activates an annual arson watch program to put surveillance on known arsonists, most of whom are kids, mentally ill folk (including bizarrely, ex fire fighters) - anyone with a track record. They're not the only source of fires, but I've seen half a dozen news stories recently about arrests and convictions.

Oh, I know that arson and stupid disposal of flammables cause fires.The same happens here, not just in California. What I meant was that, according to the article, there seemed to be a concerted social media effort to make it seem as though arson was the main cause for all the fires, as a way to downplay the other factors.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Oh no, we needIvankaback - after Don, Don Jr and Eric finish their 8 years each, it’ll be Ivankas turn: - we need her back by then.

Saw some photos of Kangaroo island and just about cried. We went for a day hike there and it was so beautiful, and to see the effects of the fire there.....

You jest (I think... ) but I have it on good authority from one of the patients at my psych hospital that because Trump has so many children, his dynastic reign is just starting, and his family will rule for a hundred years...

 

[ElectricBlue]

You jest (I think... ) but I have it on good authority from one of the patients at my psych hospital that because Trump has so many children, his dynastic reign is just starting, and his family will rule for a hundred years...

Well, it ain't Camelot!

 

[ElectricBlue]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-09/andrew-forrest-pledges-$70m-donation-to-fire-relief/11854654

 

[ChloeTzang]

Well, it ain't Camelot!

More like A Yankee at the Court of King Arthur. Mixed with Hunter S Thompson and soundtrack by The Grateful Dead and Jimi Hendrix.

Now if Trump was President of Australia all would be well. He would order the Rain Gods to produce rain on peril of an air strike and the Rain Gods would say “rain” and all would be well because the Almighty One had spoken, and the rain gods would know there’d be a Predator on the way if they refused to cooperate....

And I better cut back on the caffeine.....