Results 1 to 25 of 29
Thread: One.org
-
04-18-2005, 06:04 PM #1Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 513
One.org
I thought i'd seen the most expensive ad ever today. It was the 60 seconds ad of one.org that features actors, musicians and religious leaders. Among them are:
Al Pacino
Brad Pitt
Tom Hanks
Cameron Diaz
Justin Timberlake
George Clooney
Penelope Cruz
Jamie Foxx
Bono
Puff Daddy
Jewel
Antonio Banderas
and many many others.
the full commercial will air on their website soon. For now, a sneak preview (short version)
There also is a 30 second version (hosted by tripod so probably down very soon).
All they need is your (digital) autograph and ofcoarse to spread the word. As starsky would say, DO IT!
I thought this post would be allowed since wht was really supportive with the Tsunami disaster, it's chairity and this time doesn't involve a donation or money other than 5 seconds of your time to sign-up.Last edited by ic3d; 04-18-2005 at 06:08 PM.
-
04-18-2005, 06:29 PM #2Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Location
- Kuwait
- Posts
- 10,620
and the money goes to support AIDS community?
Bashar Al-Abdulhadi - KuwaitNET Internet Services Serving customers since 1997
Kuwait's First Webhosting and Domain Registration provider - an ICANN Accredited Registrar
Twitter: Bashar Al-Abdulhadi
-
04-18-2005, 06:46 PM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
I saw an advertisement for this on television, and was interested -- most likely because of the celebrity appearances. I checked out the website, and, while their cause is good-hearted, I think they are being a bit unrealistic in asking for the U.S. government to direct one percent of its budget towards fighting poverty and AIDS -- approximately $16 billion. Without inputting my biases, do they actually think that the Bush administration -- let alone any administration -- would even consider doing something like that? That's not an unheard-of amount of money (it is a lot), but while it's easy to have the desire or wish to cure world hunger, I think they're looking through rose-colored glasses in assuming that, with $16 billion, we could accomplish almost anything (according to their website). Have they considered the resources they'd need? Manpower, trucks, airplanes -- the means by which to deliver said resources and build schools or whatever they're suggesting --, peacekeeping troops and efforts in the less peaceful areas where there will undoubtedly be conflict between resources and different tribes before, during, and after the effort, etc. will all be required, not to even mention the moral weight of obligation that we will carry with us afterwards; many people will feel guilty, shameful, and regretful that we didn't help everyone in the world. It just gets to be a huge mess when you really think about it, and I don't think "one.org" even took that into account, or, as I said before, are seeing through rose-colored glasses.
-
04-18-2005, 06:49 PM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Kennesaw, GA
- Posts
- 1,033
Puff Daddy is a religious leader?
-
04-18-2005, 06:58 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by IvialisRyan
Puff Daddy is a religious leader?
-
04-18-2005, 07:00 PM #6Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 513
I think you are right SniperDevil. But on the other hand, i think with more governments from (western) countries the ammount of money (altough it's a lot) perhaps is possible. So many governments waste so mutch money on nothing (small example, they re-tiled the perfectly fine road next to my house for the 4th time this year..) But if we block the goal out and think about money, it is possible that an investement like this will pay itself (partially) back.
And if it's not, it only took a few seconds of our time anyway
-
04-18-2005, 07:04 PM #7Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 513
Originally posted by SniperDevil
Of course. They're considering him for the papacy.
-
04-18-2005, 07:41 PM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by ic3d
I think you are right SniperDevil. But on the other hand, i think with more governments from (western) countries the ammount of money (altough it's a lot) perhaps is possible. So many governments waste so mutch money on nothing (small example, they re-tiled the perfectly fine road next to my house for the 4th time this year..) But if we block the goal out and think about money, it is possible that an investement like this will pay itself (partially) back.
And if it's not, it only took a few seconds of our time anyway
-
04-18-2005, 08:20 PM #9Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Hollywood, CA
- Posts
- 3,052
We've already pissed away 163 billion dollars in Iraq. If we can spend that money on an ******** war, what wrong with spending 16 billion on some "actual" good? It's not as if these conservatives are fiscally responsible, not to mention it might make America look passionate to many who view us as a war mongers. So I don't see it as being a huge hurdle, especially since they're marketing this idea to many groups. With enough people behind them, it call easily happen. They're petitioning the government, so it's very different then just asking our law makers to give money away for free. This reminds me of a famous quote:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
Im sure this organization has has a better idea of what it would take to get the job done then any of us. They have obviously already have a vast amount of resources to pull in the people they did to this commercial. Im sure they didn't just think "WE NEED 16 BILLION DOLLARS", that this money is well calculated, not to mention volunteers, and donations from companies (for instance; ford & united airlines.)
I rather see my tax dollars spent on curing hunger and aids then taking the lives of innocent people and bunker blasting nuclear missles.
-
04-18-2005, 08:50 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Posts
- 7,029
Well they are spending billions and billions (not sure how much so far) on the war they should at lease be able to spend money where it is needed. I mean if the government put all that money into America it would of done a lot of good, but no.... can't do that!
-
04-18-2005, 08:56 PM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Duluth MN
- Posts
- 3,863
Not all of that 163 billion for the war is all war related. Most of it is the cost of re-building iraq, and the region to establish a solid democracy.
-
04-18-2005, 08:59 PM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Posts
- 7,029
Originally posted by amish_geek
Not all of that 163 billion for the war is all war related. Most of it is the cost of re-building iraq, and the region to establish a solid democracy.
-
04-18-2005, 09:02 PM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
I don't disagree with either of you -- in principle, morally speaking. Yes, it would be just great to end -- even partially -- world hunger, to spread education and teach those in need of knowledge, to help to occupy people worldwide in steady jobs, enough to feed their families and enjoy some of the "human rights" and luxuries that we, Americans, do.
Yes, yes, yes; all of that is great. There is no limit to what one can do with enough money and enough resources. The only problem is, once we start, we won't stop, and it will turn into more of a nation-building, Iraq-like movement to "end oppressive and genocidal governments", "spread democracy", and everything else we're hearing in American politics today. There is no way we could shove all of that aside and just "provide basic needs to billions around the world." It just doesn't work that way; nice to think about, not very realistic in actuality. When there's a donor, there's a reason. The current administration (or any future administration even distantly resembling the foreign policies of the current one) would most definitely not just dedicate $16 billion dollars to spread "human rights" across the world, in countries where authoritarian and supposedly "terroristic", non-democratic governments currently rule or reign.
-
04-18-2005, 09:02 PM #14Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Location
- Alabanza
- Posts
- 306
Just saw it on MTV few minutes ago.. kinda like the ad though... "We dont need your money.. just your voice" ..
-
04-18-2005, 09:06 PM #15Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by LOTR
Just saw it on MTV few minutes ago.. kinda like the ad though... "We dont need your money.. just your voice" ..
-
04-18-2005, 09:21 PM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Location
- The Woodlands, Tx
- Posts
- 5,974
You could spend $1 billion and give a meal to every person in Africa.
There's a sad truth to this though.....
Tomorrow they will be hungry again.
So how come we can help all those in other countries, but we cant help those right here in our own country. I can go 10 miles down the road to an area where people are just as bad off as those in Africa.
America to me looks like this. Uncle Sam has a gaping rotting infected wound in his foot. (people of his own country that need help) Yet Uncle Sam's brain is busy helping other people (countries) giving away the medicine he needs for himself, so he has a foot that's about to rot off. The more he gives to others instead of helping himself, the more that infection will spread.
I think we need to come up with an effective solution to poverty here in the U.S. first. Until then, we certainly cant solve poverty anywhere else. If I was down in poverty in the United States, I know I would get better support from the U.S. government in another country than my own. That my friends is really a sad case.
-
04-18-2005, 09:25 PM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
-
04-18-2005, 09:31 PM #18Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- Proud She-Geek
- Posts
- 1,723
Originally posted by IvialisRyan
Puff Daddy is a religious leader?
Of course. They're considering him for the papacy.
LOL<?php echo "Signature here"; ?>
-
04-18-2005, 09:33 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Posts
- 7,029
-
04-18-2005, 09:37 PM #20Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Hollywood, CA
- Posts
- 3,052
Originally posted by amish_geek
Not all of that 163 billion for the war is all war related. Most of it is the cost of re-building iraq, and the region to establish a solid democracy.
The cost to you, I, and every other american here is 163 billion dollars to date any way you want to slice it.
-
04-18-2005, 09:39 PM #21Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by Torith
Yes other people from other countries starve, but does that mean we should just ignore are own people to help other countries? I know of many people in this country just in Montana who do not even have a home.
I suppose it's a fact of life, but, as a fellow human, nourished, fed, and generally taken care of to the best and fullest extent I desire, it is a rather disturbing sight.
-
04-18-2005, 09:45 PM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Posts
- 7,029
I understand and I am sad to see people in that state that they are in right now. I am not saying we should just stop giving money, but we should look putting money where it is needed. The 160+ billion I could think could of been used for America, and say countries who are in need of food, and water. I just think the money should be used better then it is right now.
Originally posted by SniperDevil
Nor do I disagree that there are indeed Americans in sometimes awful poverty. However, I posted those pictures to reinforce the sheer level of something that I consider beyond poverty; something unspeakably inhuman; it's very shocking and disturbing, and nothing in America compares to it. One of our family friends went to Kenya and witnessed just the tiniest bit of "poverty" there on the sides of roads and in supposedly "tourist" villages there, however there are people many, many times worse off than those. At least the people whom he visited had means of sustenance and enough money to be minimally nourished and healthy.
I suppose it's a fact of life, but, as a fellow human, nourished, fed, and generally taken care of to the best and fullest extent I desire, it is a rather disturbing sight.
-
04-18-2005, 09:51 PM #23Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by Torith
I understand and I am sad to see people in that state that they are in right now. I am not saying we should just stop giving money, but we should look putting money where it is needed. The 160+ billion I could think could of been used for America, and say countries who are in need of food, and water. I just think the money should be used better then it is right now.
-
04-18-2005, 10:12 PM #24Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Location
- The Woodlands, Tx
- Posts
- 5,974
Those are the extreme cases..... and our country has been helping for years, and they are still like that. There are many churches who support the hungry, and many millions donated to them. Yet there are still those like this. I am 35, I remember seeing pictures like that on TV as a kid. If after all these years there are still people like that, then evidently we are going about it the wrong way.. The more we feed, the more kids they have.
"Yeah, let's have all the kids we want, the Americans will feed them"
I'm sure if you asked a starving couple in such an area in Africa if they mind if we put birth control in their food, they probably woulnd mind. Means they can have sex all they want without having to worry about kids to feed. Do that long enough, and you eventually bring the population down enough that we can actually bring them out of the poverty.
From now to 30 years ago, how much money and food has gone to these places? I'm not saying "dont" feed them, I am simply saying to try something different in order to actually make a "change" in the situation. In 30 years, I have seen much change in the poverty there. If they still have bony kids there with the "starvation potbellies", we arent doing much more than simply keeping them alive to produce more kids.
I'm not being cold shouldered, I'm being realistic.
-
04-19-2005, 12:14 AM #25Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Posts
- 1,144
If we did anything like that you know how MANY people would consider us racists?