I remember in the late 70s or early 80s reading an article in People(?) magazine about an entrepreneur who was being threatenened with legal action. They guy had some eponymous business, and some traveling Chrysler employees happened to spy it. And they were not happy about it. The name of the place was something like “Jeep’s Bar and Grill” or “Jeep’s Trading Post.” They informed him that he was using Chrysler’s trademark improperly. He replied that his business had nothing to do with their trademark, that he had been called “Jeep” before Jeep vehicles existed.
But I don’t know whatever happened with that story. Anyone???
Once again, the American Red Cross shows that it is a disreputable organization. How many scandals do they have to be involved in before people say “enough is enough”?
I suspect you say this in jest, but the Red Cross does have a pretty disreputable reputation in some places. In Canada, for example, the Red Cross was involved in a huge tainted blood scandal which (IIRC) resulted in their being legally barred from managing the nation’s blood supply. A new non-profit organisation, the Canadian Blood Services, was founded in 1998 to take over from the Red Cross, which had lost all trust in the eyes of the government and a large sector of the public.
I was wondering about that too. I thought the American Red Cross might have a slightly-disreputable reputation like that of the Boy Scouts of America (which, IIRC, will not allow gay people in its ranks).
Many people in San Diego were pretty cranky at the Red Cross a few years ago. We had a fire in San Diego county a few years ago. (Not the big one that made the news but one a year or two before.) The Red Cross diverted a lot of money that people donated to help with fire victims to general Red Cross programs. They have say they have fixed this problem and allow people to earmark their donations for specifics causes.
It certainly looks odd (though not impossible) that J&J and the Red Cross both owned rights to the same trade mark in such very close markets. However, if that is so, and the American Red Cross is using the trade mark contrary to their old agreement, then J&J must fight or lose their rights.
I was quite surprised and astounded when I first saw the ad where the American Red Cross was selling?, promoting? an emergency radio that was “endorsed” and carried the logo of the ARC. Without knowing anything about legal implications, it struck me as totally inappropriate.
I’m sorry, this is probably off-topic, but I’m just stunned.
People blame the American Red Cross for blood donation rules put out by the CDC/FDA/whoever? Or for stuff that happened 60 years ago? For calling donors and asking for more blood when supplies are depleted? THAT is the bitch?
I just…
Look, the Red Cross are the go-to guys for refugees trying to find family members. They run refugee camps and food and medical care for hundreds of thousands of human beings. They have first aid and babysitting and “how to save someone from drowning” classes. In Germany a firefighter is a member of the Red Cross, as is any Mexican lifeguard. A friend of mine volunteers for them and not a week goes by that he’s not giving money to some poor family whose house has burned down…
And you’re mad because they charged your father a nickel for a doughnut (and, upon re-read, the order for that charge came from the DoD)?
Are you Provo or Orange? Only members of organizations such as those could be so mule-headed.
After 9/11 they were raked over the coals for diverting money. It resulted in their Chairperson resigning. After Katrina they were harshly criticized for misuse of funds.
They are not the only organization out there doing what they claim to do. They are just the biggest and the most politically connected. Others out there are doing what they claim to do much more efficiently and effectively.
BTW, a nickel to an enlisted combat soldier in WWII was a lot more money that what you are paying to Starbucks for a latte.
I just did a date-order google news search on “red cross” and came up with little more than “is assisting” or “has set up shelters”. The website of the American Red Cross says that it handles 60,000 “disasters” every year. My French, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic is lacking so I’ll leave it to others to find statistics for other countries.
You obviously have issues with the organization but those issues seem to have little to do with what they are doing in 2007. Frankly, until I read this I didn’t realize the red cross was still doing it - I thought it was purely a military operation these days.
Send your money wherever you want. I really don’t care. None of mine will go to the ARC because I know of other organizations that are much more efficient and effective.
Why can’t those service members who were treated so shabbily by the Red Cross, then, still harbor ill will towards the organization? If that’s their only personal experience with the organization, it’s what they’re going to base their reactions to the name on.
My father is one of those people who has a very jaundiced view of the Red Cross. Because of his personal experience. My own personal experience isn’t as damning as his was, but I wasn’t that impressed with them, when I dealt with them, myself. Which doesn’t even get into the repeated scandals with donations going astray that have been in the news time and time again. A similiar scandal has nearly dismantled the United Way, and with good cause. But because of the American Red Cross’ unique position within the halls of power they’ve been cushioned from their own misconduct.
If the Red Cross were the only charitable organization out there, I’d be able to understand your own inability to accept that actions will have consequences for an organization. Often consequences that last lifetimes. As it is, with the exception of the monopolistic relationship the Red Cross has with the US Military*, I think that there are a great deal of other options out there.
*During my own time in service (1989-1994) the only notification of death or illness of family members that the military considered “official” was that from the Red Cross.
This link takes you to a “the moon landings were faked” page and discusses the NASA/Masonic conspiracy. In a quick scan I did not see anything about bad blood, and I have my doubts about the accuracy of anything on that website. :rolleyes:
