Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Charities Upset Over Chase Facebook Contest

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the could-have-just-used-terms-and-conditions dept.

The Almighty Buck 464

ssv03 writes "The New York Times is reporting that Chase Community Giving of Chase Bank recently held a contest on Facebook in which users were encouraged to vote for their favorite charities. At the end of the contest, the 100 charities with the most votes would win $25,000 and advance to the next round to have a chance to win $1 million. Initially, the vote counts for each organization were made public, but two days before voting ended they were hidden, and the final totals have still not been released. While Chase had no official leader board during the voting, several organizations were keeping track of projected winners. Those projections were almost identical to the final results, yet several organizations including Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists. They had been performing very well (some within the top 20) until the vote counters were removed. Chase Bank has so far refused to discuss the issue with the organizations. SSDP has spoken out in a press release (PDF) and is calling for a boycott."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498100)

Give the money back, you bailout spending fuckers.

Re:Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498166)

Chase was the first bank to pay back TARP over six months ago. Chase was perfectly healthy anyway. They sold all their subprime assets in 2005. The only reason they took TARP in the first place was because Bernanke/Paulson/Geithner held a gun to their head and forced them to.

Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, Christmas gifts (-1, Offtopic)

sbbshoe058 (1703986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498108)

http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com] Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, Christmas gifts ready for you be proud? If it is not so. I am here to introduce you to the best use of things. Christmas factory outlets. Buy now proposed a "Christmas gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for? Quickly move your mouse bar. Activities As of December 26 1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes and kids shoes. 2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T-Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc. 3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc. 4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans, Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc. http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com]

Re:Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, Christmas gif (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498264)

If you are going to spam at least have the common decency to learn the language in which you are spamming. Fucking niggers.

Charities? (5, Insightful)

Jojoba86 (1496883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498112)

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists

In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.

Re:Charities? (1, Insightful)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498120)

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists

In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.

Well, drug addicts are often in need ;) As for the anti-abortion, they just *need* to be dragged screaming and kicking into the century of the fruitbat.

Re:Charities? (1)

Naerymdan (870497) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498338)

The century of the fruitbat is soooooo last century! I for one welcome our new anti-abortion overlords of the Century of the Anchovy.

Re:Charities? (2, Informative)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498346)

Oh wow, so anyone using marijuana is a drug addict. You ever drink coffee or alcohol, ya addict?

SSDP is about repealing the law passed by an anti-drug crusading republican which denied student loans to anyone with a marijuana defense. Because of course taking people's education away is certainly going to lead them on the rigth path in life. That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't comprehend it.

Re:Charities? (5, Insightful)

Whatshisface (1203604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498426)

But coming back to the original point, is that a charity? Just from reading the summary, it seems like all the groups that were removed were activist groups endorsing a specific change in laws. Its one thing to ask Chase to endorse the charity of your choice, its another to ask them to make a political donation to support your pet cause.

Re:Charities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498580)

Agreed; those do not belong to the group of organizations I would label as a "charity". It sounds like they were removed with cause.

Re:Charities? (2, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498752)

If that's Chase's policy, they should just explain that and be consistent about it, and far fewer people would be complaining.

Re:Charities? (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498458)

Oh wow, so anyone using marijuana is a drug addict. You ever drink coffee or alcohol, ya addict?

Yep! But I can give it up anytime I like!

That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't comprehend it.

Ah, I see what I did wrong in my original reply ;)

Re:Charities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498480)

That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't comprehend it.

Make life easier for all concerned, use the {sarcasm}{/sarcasm} tags next time.

Re:Charities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498488)

Oh wow, so anyone using marijuana is a drug addict. You ever drink coffee or alcohol, ya addict?

No I don't, and yes they are.

Free abortions for minorities. (2, Funny)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498790)

As for the anti-abortion, they just *need* to be dragged screaming and kicking into the century of the fruitbat.
--

You are 100% right. I think we should start with a comprehensive national program to provide free abortions for everyone who is not of the sinful white race. We would educate all the mothers of minorities that they have rights, provide for them, with a special tax on white people, perhaps, because of their sinful state, to pay for it.

In fact, knowing that our planet is so terribly overpopulated, we could even work to save our beseiged planet and creatively encourage pregnant mothers of minority children to make the correct choices through the use of govnerment aid for her existing children as an incentive.

Re:Charities? (4, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498134)

Many organizations in the US that push for policy changes are federally registered as 501c3 charities.

Re:Charities? (5, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498180)

It's simpler to refer to 501c as a tax status and leave the charity part off.

Re:Charities? (1, Offtopic)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498664)

Many organizations in the US that push for policy changes are federally registered as 501c3 charities.

All being registered as a 501c means is that you are a non profit/not for profit, it has nothing to do with whether or not you are a charity.

Re:Charities? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498136)

I thought "charities" in the US were about agendas with a tax deduction. Then again, I'm not an American, so I may be wrong.

Re:Charities? (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498142)

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists

In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.

Plenty of anti-abortion groups are about helping and educating pregnant women, not advancing political change. Anti-abortion doesn't always mean anti-choice (as strange as it sounds). The MPP probably believe they're helping glaucoma patients. I don't know what the SSDP does.

Re:Charities? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498198)

Plenty of anti-abortion groups are about helping and educating pregnant women, not advancing political change.

If by "education" you mean abstinence only and if they're pregnant, well, they have to have the baby and that's all. And what does a scared pregnant girl after the baby is born? Adoption? Whatever - the girl is on her own after the baby is born.

That's the trouble with all anti-abortion groups: they only care about babies being born, after wards, the mother is on her own - even if it means they starve and are homeless. And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian.

Pro-life indeed.

Pro-"Choice" (2, Insightful)

Fished (574624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498268)

And the problem with all "pro-choice" organizations and individuals is that they only care about the adults. They never consider that the baby, could it speak, might rather live even if it's car seat wouldn't be loaded in an SUV and mom wouldn't get to have the perfect, 2.4 kid household with the perfect husband and the perfect career. Instead, they declare on rather spurious grounds that the baby isn't a baby and say, "just excise it!" And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian, or even Catholic.

I certainly agree that many pro-lifers are self-righteous blowhards. But not all of them are. You might want to do a bit more looking if that's what you think.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (4, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498306)

Like anything, both sides are filled with extremist assholes.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (2, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498560)

If you believe in something strongly (and forcing women to harbor a parasite for 9 months / killing children, depending on which way you see it, is an emotional subject), you tend to think the other side is made up of assholes.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498572)

Like anything, both sides are filled with extremist assholes.

When pro-choicers start threatening, murdering and blowing up clinics that refuse to carry out abortions, then you may have a point...

Re:Pro-"Choice" (1, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498738)

Pro-Lifers definitely win the award for the biggest assholes but if you take anything there is always someone who is more extreme than the norm and to deny that the pro-abortion people don't have them is ignorant.

I believe in the right to have abortion but there are still people that hold my point of view that I don't want to associate and yes some have been violent. Just because the other side is dumb enough to go all out and use bombs doesn't make the pro-choice violence right.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498314)

And the problem with all "pro-choice" organizations and individuals is that they only care about the adults. They never consider that the baby, could it speak, might rather live even if it's car seat wouldn't be loaded in an SUV and mom wouldn't get to have the perfect, 2.4 kid household with the perfect husband and the perfect career. Instead, they declare on rather spurious grounds that the baby isn't a baby and say, "just excise it!" And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian, or even Catholic.

I certainly agree that many pro-lifers are self-righteous blowhards. But not all of them are. You might want to do a bit more looking if that's what you think.

There is no such thing as a "baby" until it is born. Before that it is a faetus, a pre-stage in the creation of a baby. 99% of all chosen abortions are done before the featus has organs, let alone nervous system. It is quite immoral to force people what to do with their bodies, especially since the grounds for objections are at best some kind of vitalism - soul, spirit and other nonsense.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (0, Flamebait)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498402)

There is no such thing as a "baby" until it is born. Before that it is a faetus, a pre-stage in the creation of a baby. 99% of all chosen abortions are done before the featus has organs, let alone nervous system.

Source? Citation? The heartbeat begins at week five. The nervous system during week four. wiki [wikipedia.org] , Because with that, this page [abortionno.org] contradicts you give with 48% of abortions occurring after the 9th week, by which time the brain, eyes, skin and other organs have begun devolpment.

It is quite immoral to force people what to do with their bodies, especially since the grounds for objections are at best some kind of vitalism - soul, spirit and other nonsense.

How about the immorality of deciding to end the life of the fetus? Isn't this exactly the same thing you are complaining about, except on the other person involved? By the time most abortions occur, the fetus has a brain, an active nervous system, a heart beat, skin, eyes, what more do you need to know that the fetus is alive?

Re:Pro-"Choice" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498516)

During weeks 4 and 5 you also have a tail. Humans don't have tails! Maybe we should abort all babies as monsters!!! Ahahahahahaha.

But seriously, you do.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498540)

So you say that deciding to end the life of a fetus is immoral. Animals in nature have been practicing infanticide [wikipedia.org] since animals began walking the earth. Is it immoral to destroy a non sentient fetus versus a developing infant? If God created all things then he also built this into all animals, the only difference between us and the animal kingdom, is we do it earlier in the childs development.
 
Is it moral, or immoral neither is relevant. All things on earth do it, all have done it for thousands of years, animals just do it for different reasons than we do it.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (1)

ScislaC (827506) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498622)

I'm asking this seriously. If you took said fetus out of the woman at the 9 week stage, what are the chances it would survive w/o assistance?

You also bring up "immorality"... morality in general is a very subjective thing and I personally prefer ethics.

Plain and simple, if it would kill my wife to have a baby and she got pregnant (and she would otherwise be able to live a semi-normal healthy lifespan), my guess is that I would want to keep my wife alive... however, I would still leave the decision up to her.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498652)

Until the baby is born, it is a growth in the women's womb... a tumor so to speak. Gradually over the full term, that tumor becomes more like a human. To your point about most abortions around the 9th week.... take the tumor out then & see if it's a human.... not likely. Will it survive then outside the womb & develop? No... so it's not a human yet.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498368)

They never consider that the baby

It's not a baby. It's a fetus, at best.

could it speak

Even if it were a 'baby', babies can't talk! It wouldn't talk for a couple of years, and it'll end up saying what's fed to it.

And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian, or even Catholic.

That's 'Apathetic neo-pragmatist, with Martian leanings', thank you very much.

Instead, they declare on rather spurious grounds that the baby isn't a baby and say, "just excise it!"

Here's an analogy for you. You wake up one day with a ...thing screwed into your belly button. You go to the doctor, and he says it's an alien device that's taking nutrients from your blood and transferring them to an alien, while taking wastes from the alien and transferring them to you. You tell the doc to remove it, and he says he can't, because the alien will die.

Do you really care that the alien dies?
How do you feel, knowing your body is being used like this without your permission?
How do you feel about not being able to end this?
How do you feel about being told this is your fault because you walked too close to an alien ship one day? Especially, since people are conspiring to keep the knowledge of the aliens and how to safely contact them a secret.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (1)

mrhex2 (1704018) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498428)

Sounds like a scientology plot...

Re:Pro-"Choice" (1, Flamebait)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498474)

Hey, this makes total sense except for the fact that THE ONLY THING THE ANALOGY INTRODUCED WAS THAT THE BABY IS NO LONGER HUMAN. Well fucking done there champ, that's excellent.

So you're walking down the street when you see a HUGE ALIEN. You stab it to death hurriedly. And these self-righteous bastards want to try you for murder!

Re:Pro-"Choice" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498484)

While I understand this is pointless, here it goes. Whether or not a hunk of cells is a baby (and when it becomes a baby) is a matter of opinion. If you think its not, then abortion is fine. If you think it is, then its not unreasonable to think that killing it is murder. If it is, then you can't let it go because the other person has a different opinion of what constitutes murder. Unfortunately, this whole debate ends up being pointless to have. Both sides don't realize that the whole thing is just a matter of opinion, and think that the other side is retarded. Granted, based on the way that both sides act, that's more or less true.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (1, Flamebait)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498380)

> And the problem with all "pro-choice" organizations and individuals is that they only care about the adults.

Are you f*cking kidding?

Anti-Choice theocrats never care about the consequences of their short sightedness.

They leave that as a mess for someone else to clean up once they have done their meddling.

Even your caricature of the pregnant woman is pathetically out of touch with reality.

Oh Come On (2, Interesting)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498594)

I wish both sides of the debate would at least be honest about their motivations.

The anti-choice side just want full control over a woman's body. To them a woman is nothing more than livestock that they own.

The anti-life people are just in it because, frankly, killing babies is fun and they can't quite figure out how to legally have Friday night baby killing parties.

Now... figure out which side I'm on :-P

Re:Oh Come On (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498644)

You want to use women as breeders so you can kill more babies?

Re:Pro-"Choice" (3, Informative)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498658)

As a long time progressive pro-lifer I must say that the type of groups you are talking about to my knowledge have not existed since the 80's. Most pro-life groups I know of that do outreach have people that help with getting a job, getting into school and very often helping with childcare. The last one I volunteered at even had a licensed therapist come in that treated issues like having an abortion, domestic violence and post-partum depression. Show me a Planned Parenthood that does counseling for grief after the abortion, it seems PP is more of the cut and run type when it comes to this issue.

I'm a member of CFI and not bound by any theology, so your blanket statement doesn't apply to me or most of the people I know who work at pro-life groups like Democrats for Life, PLAGAL and other progressive groups or even volunteers at centers that are sponsored by religious organizations.

Re:Pro-"Choice" (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498674)

Lol... at the point to which you are referring there is no baby. Just a high chance of a baby in future. The fetus' inability to talk is not the issue. The issue is that the cell blob does not have a brain and could not possibly know what to choose. Therefore if it could talk it would likely say nothing, since it can't comprehend anyways.

It is similar to saying, if plastic bottles could talk, they'd ask to be recycled. That statement is meaningless because plastic bottles like fetus' have no desires. Since there is no desire then it is impossible to force anything upon it.

Re:Charities? (3, Informative)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498666)

That's the trouble with all anti-abortion groups: they only care about babies being born, after wards, the mother is on her own - even if it means they starve and are homeless. And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian.

Your ignorance of the anti-abortion movement is hilarious. My parents/family have (for 20+ years, now) been very involved in supporting multiple organizations in SoCal whose primary concern is taking care of single mothers who choose not to have an abortion - providing a home for them (often for the first couple years), while also helping them find a job, including providing professional skills training and support for taking college courses, as well as paying for food, baby needs, medical expenses, etc. Here's a link to one of them [hisnestingplace.org] . The website quality is kinda crappy because they spend all monetary donations on supporting the women. But don't let a google search of "home for unwed mothers", or "home for single mothers", get in the way of your hate.

Re:Charities? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498266)

I imagine they're in the business of getting you high as fuck, bro.

Re:Charities? (3, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498274)

I'm guessing the SSDP wants to protect more fellow students from having their lives destroyed by the insanity of the War on Drugs.

Re:Charities? (5, Informative)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498352)

It's about removing the law that denies student loans for anyone with a marijuana conviction. Because of course taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar isn't exactly the best way to minimize marijuana's impact on people's lives. The wierd thing is is that the punishment/getting caught is far more damaging than the drug itself.

Oh do please save that selfish nonsense, pathetic (1, Troll)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498756)

"Because of course taking someone's education away"

What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself? What kind of crap is this?

Nobody is taking anyone's education away, why are you using hyperbolic stupidity that borders lying to prove your "point"(which isn't much of a point even if you weren't making shit up).

Re:Charities? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498722)

As heard on the news about a year ago, "I think we can all agree that there are too many abortions".

Re:Charities? (-1, Troll)

sbbshoe058 (1703986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498174)

http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com] Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, Christmas gifts ready for you be proud? If it is not so. I am here to introduce you to the best use of things. Christmas factory outlets. Buy now proposed a "Christmas gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for? Quickly move your mouse bar. Activities As of December 26 1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes and kids shoes. 2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T-Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc. 3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc. 4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans, Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc. http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com]

So disqualify them... (5, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498194)

I wouldn't have a problem if Chase had declared an organization ineligible, but that's not what they did. Instead they wimped out and hid the vote tallies, probably blocking votes to organizations that those running the contest don't support, without even saying who or why they were disqualified.

Amex did it better... (5, Informative)

klubar (591384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498396)

American Express (AmEx) did something similar in the Boston area. However, they thought it through first. An organization that wanted to participate had to submit a proposal on what they would do with the money and description of the organization's misson. AmEx selected about 40 (all worthwhile) organizations to vote on. AmEx got a reasonable selection of charities to participate--some of the really large ones, and a few highly specialized. The organizations used their participation to encourage their members to vote and become engaged to the organiztion goals.

I think every organization that was selected got some funding (perhaps at the $1000 level) so there weren't hard feeling from the losers.

Goes to show you that Chase != American Express.

Re:Charities? (0, Troll)

sbbshoe058 (1703986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498222)

http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com] Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, Christmas gifts ready for you be proud? If it is not so. I am here to introduce you to the best use of things. Christmas factory outlets. Buy now proposed a "Christmas gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for? Quickly move your mouse bar. Activities As of December 26 1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes and kids shoes. 2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T-Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc. 3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc. 4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans, Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc. http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com]

Re:Charities? (3, Insightful)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498334)

Try telling a zealous anti-abortionist they're not helping people in need. That'll go over well.

Also ask the ~600,000 Americans arrested for possession (not trafficking) of marijuana if new law is or isn't required. That's 600k *annually*.

Re:Charities? (1, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498688)

Also ask the ~600,000 Americans arrested for possession (not trafficking) of marijuana if new law is or isn't required. That's 600k *annually*.

Lots of criminals believe themselves unfairly imprisoned if not outright innocent. I bet if we polled the murderers, they'd believe a change in the law was needed too.

Re:Charities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498374)

"George I'm supposed to find a charity to throw some of the company's money at and they all seem the same to me so what's the difference."

Re:Charities? (3, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498478)

Silly rabbit. A charity is just a corporation with tax exempt status.

Re:Charities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498522)

most charities, however, do not see personal income as an infinitely climbing peak. their incomes are often decidedly modest, to support themselves while the rest goes to the charity, compared to the what the multimillion dollar bonuses that corporations' executives aim to get.

Re:Charities? (2, Informative)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498536)

If drugs were legalized, it would do a hell of a lot more good for poor communities than any sort of handout.

On the other hand, if abortion were criminalized, many more women would die and the crime rate would spike 15 years later.

Re:Charities? (2, Insightful)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498656)

Being "anti-abortion" doesn't necessarily mean one advocates the criminalization of it. I personally think abortion is a disgusting cop-out and an affront to humanity in most cases, but I also realize there is enough of an argument over when life begins that it becomes essentially a moral/religious matter, and you run into all kinds of church/state issues if you attempt to criminalize it. So, until such time as that question can be definitively answered, I think it's something that needs to be allowed to be available. Let the doctor, the woman, and optionally whatever deity she worships sort the moral issues out among themselves.

Re:Charities? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498602)

Since people could vote for them, at the very least they are charities as defined by this competition's rules.

Re:Charities? (1, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498610)

"Students for Sensible Drug Policy" sounds like a bunch of douchebag college kids trying to game the system for 25k in free pot money. God forbid Chase dumps them for another Susan G. Komen or some such.

Nothing outrageous... (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498118)

Something in the fine prints of the contest rule, about which nobody but lawyers care, must allow this to happen.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (4, Informative)

Jojoba86 (1496883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498126)

As TFA states:

Chase’s eligibility rules make it clear that the bank can disqualify any participant.

Pretty straightfoward really, no lawyer techno-bable there.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498160)

An average lawyer babbles. A powerful lawyer kills with a word.

And I'm not implying that the latter is the case here.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498598)

A powerful lawyer kills with a word.

  Mau'Dib

Re:Nothing outrageous... (3, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498254)

And as others are saying, they -should- have disqualified them, instead of changing the game mid-stream and hiding things. The hiding is why people are -really- mad right now.

Don't get me wrong, the pro-MJ people would be pissed either way... But now -everyone- is pissed instead.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (0, Troll)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498292)

I care very little.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498562)

the pro-MJ people would be pissed

Nah dude, we are cool with whatever.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498304)

So instead of hiding the numbers, they could have just stated the organizations they were not going to qualify. It is the lack of transparency that is the problem, not the winners and losers. This is true in banking as well. The recent problems in finance is that US banks are acting like corrupt fiefdoms.

Disqualifying some of these would be quite simple. For instance, pot is still illegal, and the bank should not support illegal activities. Other groups likes to display pornography around schools and other places where children are likely to frequent. This is also something a bank might frown upon.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (4, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498310)

Remove them from the beginning rather than letting them think they have a chance.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498320)

And of course, doing so when they are visibly ranked in the top 20 is really bad PR... and this is generally a PR stunt so they are trying to keep the spin positive while becoming political. So much for caring for the community.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498376)

Aren't the "participants" the voters?

Re:Nothing outrageous... (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498694)

I dont need to see a disclaimer to form my opinion here.

Chase is donating 3.5 million bucks to charities, and the result is a bunch of fucking assholes with the nerve to bitch and complain about how they are doing it.

Re:Nothing outrageous... (1)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498190)

chances are it goes "....Judges decision is final..." ;)

Charities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498132)

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups don't sound like very charitable organizations. They sound like political groups that may be non-profit.

Re:Charities? (2, Insightful)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498202)

That's not the point. The point is that Chase, after making the results highly public, made them vanish without explanation from public view as soon as they started trending in a direction that Chase didn't care for.

If they'd actually come out and *said* "We're disqualifying these organisations on the grounds of _______..." and then removed those groups from the tally, that would be one thing, but this is quite another.

Chase should at least be honest about what they're doing and why.

Re:Charities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498534)

It's their contest, they can run it any way they want... they are being just as "honest" as anti-abortion whackos running a charity that is "helping women".

Re:Charities? (2, Informative)

Bazman (4849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498632)

As I see it, they made the current votes public. As any fule kno, if you don't want to bias your election/survey/popularity contest you don't publish the votes as they come in since that will either encourage the losing parties to have to rally their troops or lose heart and give up, or cause the winning parties to get over-confident. Sure, these effects may cancel each other out but it's no longer a simple question of how do the people who can be bothered to think independently want to vote.

See that last slashdot poll that asked 'How do you choose your answer to the slashdot poll?' when the most popular option was 'vote for the current leader'. Or something like that. Someome find the URL...

Non-embarassing charities (4, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498176)

Obviously Chase meant the top "non-embarassing to a big company" charities. Can you imagine if Chase had to donate $1M to the Marijuana Policy Project? I'm sure the board freaked out at the thought of "chase" and "MJ" being in the same sentence and said, "do whatever is necessary to make sure we don't get that association."

Re:Non-embarassing charities (2, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498496)

Exactly what I was thinking. Of course, Chase should know that "crowdsourcing" is not guaranteed to yield the results that they were hoping for.

Re:Non-embarassing charities (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498714)

Which is weird because if they came in first then clearly the people are ok with it.... /shrugs/ I don't get the logic.

Marketing, not charity (4, Insightful)

xzvf (924443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498208)

The reason a corporation give money to a charity isn't because it believes in the charity, but because it will get a blurb in paper saying how good they are and increase the brand good will. Does anyone really expect a corporation to spend $25000 so it can be on the news with a headline "Chase supports legalizing Drugs". I won't even get to the quagmire around abortion. I'm sure if they do this again, they'll pre-screen organizations that are allowed to participate. Frankly I'd been more concerned if they screened out an organization that helps people get out of credit card debt.

Re:Marketing, not charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498236)

Can you disprove that this is solely the reason why individuals do so as well, that it is only because it will boost their status and provide them personal benefits?

Re:Marketing, not charity (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498392)

> Can you disprove that this is solely the reason why individuals do so as well, that it is only because it will boost their status and provide them personal benefits?

Individuals are minus the marketing department.

So claiming this sort of thing for "individuals" is rather questionable.

Although that sort of claim is probably very much the case for the type of people that get onto the society page.

Re:Marketing, not charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498700)

Don't individuals have their own marketing department, like they have their own accounting department and operations department? How is it questionable?

Making that claim about companies is similar to making it about people - it's based on unobservable assessments which stem from personal beliefs that can't really be proven or disproven. As such it simply reflects what you want to believe. If you believe that people are good and companies are evil, then people have good motivations for their actions and companies bad. Can you say that nobody who works for a company will feel good that it gives to charity? Can you say that a person who gives to charity will never feel satisfied about having an increased status?

Re:Marketing, not charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498570)

Can you disprove that this is solely the reason why individuals do so as well, that it is only because it will boost their status and provide them personal benefits?

I won't deny that this [public recognition] is probably the reason why some individuals make charitable donations. However, there is no way that you can argue that this is the sole motivation.

For myself, I strictly avoid public recognition. The vast majority of my donation dollars (90+%) are made anonymously, with requests that my name not be made public. (For the others, I would still rather not be recognized, but it is not worth the effort to maintain anonymity.)

Posting as anonymous coward because I do not want recognition.

Re:Marketing, not charity (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498780)

I've never donated to any charity with the knowledge that my name would become public.

I mean, for all I know, it does. I don't really bother to check. I just don't know or care.

The only non-profit I've donated to that I knew such knowledge would become public is the local theater I volunteer at, and I did that to become a member, which I know is public.

Re:Marketing, not charity (2, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498238)

In both of those cases, you can be sure that they'd get plenty of blurbs in every news medium. They're getting blurbs now, but it's being tied to how secretive they are with money. Not sure I want to bank with them.

Like Darth Vader said: (5, Insightful)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498242)

" I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it any further ".

Banks, Ugh!

Re:Like Darth Vader said: (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498296)

" I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it any further ".

Banks, Ugh!

I draw the line at where they ask me to wear a dress and bonnet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtKkyrZtUaM [youtube.com]

Good for Chase. (-1, Troll)

TermV (49182) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498350)

The people who are voting for the drug organizations are idiots who need to put down the bong for long enough to see that there are other human being starving and dying and suffering. The thought that people are putting the legalization of a recreational drug over say giving somebody a hot meal sickens me.

Re:Good for Chase. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498372)

from SSDP.org:

"Values Statement

Students for Sensible Drug Policy neither encourages nor condemns drug use. Rather, we seek to reduce the harms caused by drug abuse and drug policies. As young people, we strive toward a just and compassionate society where drug abuse is treated as a health issue instead of a criminal justice issue. We recognize that the very real harms of drug abuse are not adequately addressed by current policies and we advocate measures that would effectively help those who develop drug problems. Yet, we also believe that individuals must ultimately be allowed to make decisions for themselves as long as their actions do not infringe upon anyone else’s freedoms or safety."

Re:Good for Chase. (2, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498412)

The fact that so many people are imprisoned or have otherwise have their lives ruined by the great war against drugs (self ownership) sickens me. Chase chose to put up a vote to determine what people believe sickens them most. Who are you or Chase to interfere?

Re:Good for Chase. (1, Troll)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498416)

I often masturbate instead of thinking of the hungry.

Re:Good for Chase. (1)

KazW (1136177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498448)

The people who are voting for the drug organizations are idiots who need to put down the bong for long enough to see that there are other human being starving and dying and suffering. The thought that people are putting the legalization of a recreational drug over say giving somebody a hot meal sickens me.

While throwing someone in prison for smoking or growing something completely natural, destroys their credibility, severely affects their ability to get most jobs and ruins their life isn't such a problem with you?

I'm not saying people who are starving are unimportant, far from it, but to say that it's simply a matter of a recreational drug is pure ignorance on your part, and it is you who sickens me.

Re:Good for Chase. (3, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498452)

And the thought of people's lives being ruined over doing something that did no harm to anyone doesn't sicken you?

Re:Good for Chase. (5, Insightful)

quarrelinastraw (771952) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498466)

there are other human being starving and dying and suffering

Yeah, like the many people dead or wounded due to gang violence fueled by the street drug trade, or the many people addicted to drugs who can't get medical or treatment help because they will get arrested or simply ignored, the people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq due to terrorist groups funded largely by the heroin trade.

I could go on, but you're an idiot if you think the current US policy toward narcotics doesn't cause starving, dying and suffering.

People who think caring about drug policy is for bong-toting fratboys sicken me.

Re:Good for Chase. (3, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498504)

The thought that people are putting the legalization of a recreational drug over say giving somebody a hot meal sickens me.

The thought that people are putting giving someone a hot meal over say giving a good professional education sickens me.

The fact is that most of the people whose lives have been destroyed by drug-related arrests are not bored college kids looking for recreation. If your dad is rich enough your arrest will be stricken off police records. If you can pay a good enough lawyer you'll get probation. If you are poor you'll get a rap sheet that will haunt you forever.

Disclaimer: I have never used drugs, not even marijuana. But I support total legalization of all drugs.

Re:Good for Chase. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30498584)

The people who are voting for the drug organizations are idiots who need to put down the bong for long enough to see that there are other human being starving and dying and suffering.

That's precisely what pisses a lot of us off! Our society is currently spending untold $billions right now harassing potheads who are hurting no one but themselves. We could (and should) be using those resources to help those who are starving, dying, and suffering.

Democracy (1)

jirka (1164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498464)

That's the problem with democracy. People might vote for something you don't like. This is a lesson that many dictators learned the hard way (and solved in the same way as Chase). It's really better to start cheating from the very start and just pretend people are actually voting.

A Credit Card company changing the rules? (5, Funny)

duncan (16437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30498774)

Wow, a credit card company changing the rules in the middle of the game.

How Shocking!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?