Digital Fundraising Booms For Haiti Relief 124
It seems that a recent digital fundraising drive for Haiti relief has stunned organizers at the Red Cross and White House. As of the last tally on Friday the campaign was at well over $8 million. "Earlier Thursday, when the Red Cross topped $3 million in text and social media donations — it hit nearly $40 million from all sources by late Thursday — spokesman Jonathan Aiken described it as 'a phenomenal number that's never been achieved before. People text up to three times at 10 bucks a pop,' Aiken said. 'You're talking about roughly 300,000 people actually spontaneously deciding, "I can spare $10 for this." And that's remarkable.' As of late Thursday, more than half of all donations to the Red Cross's Haiti relief effort had been received online, according to a news release.
well done, humans. (Score:4, Insightful)
it seems i may have underestimated you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
$40 million dollars is a lot of money, and will do a great deal of good in Haiti. It's great that people are willing to donate to help people --- goodness knows they need it, and we can all spare it.
But to put matters into perspective, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is spending that amount every three and a half hours (based on the Congressional Research Service figure of $2 billion a week [wikipedia.org], which comes out to about $12 million an hour).
You are human as well. (Score:1)
I think you are lying.
The low amount and high publicity is key (Score:3, Insightful)
harnessing emotions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, if every person in the world sends me 1 penny (just ONE penny) via paypal to me at ***lotsofburpspaypalaccount***, then I will be very happy.
If everyone sends ANYONE a penny via paypal - paypal will be happier than you.
Re: (Score:1)
By the way, if every person in the world sends me 1 penny (just ONE penny) via paypal to me at gurps_npc (at) hotmail.com, then I will be very happy.
From: service@paypal.com
Your payment for $0.01 USD to gurps_npc@hotmail.com has been sent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The low amount and high publicity is key (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I'm anti-materialism, so I have zero interest in cars, TVs, or other junk. Hell the computer I'm typing on was built in 2002! Instead I'd probably follow in Benjamin Franklin's footsteps, save the extra ~$25,000 per year in my bank, and then retire when I'm circa 40.
After that I'd just tinker around, trying to help people wherever I could.
BTW it isn't "the government's money". They didn't sweat and labor to earn it. I did.
Re: (Score:2)
But you love your Commodore 64 ;)
Re: (Score:1)
BTW it isn't "the government's money". They didn't sweat and labor to earn it. I did
Of course it was all your own work. You were driving on your private roads on the way to work, flying your privately air-controlled jetways if you have to, using your private security forces to keep order handle fires and other disasters. Of course you didn't see a lot of disasters because your building codes and city management prevented and minimized them. You must have bailed out your own bank, and used the internet which sprang from your privately created DARPA-net to post your slashdot comments.
All on
Re: (Score:2)
>>>You were driving on your private roads on the way to work
Since roads are funded by a toll paid at the gasoline pump, there's no reason for government to be sucking money from my paycheck to pay for roads. The cost was already paid when I filled-up the car.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW it isn't "the government's money". They didn't sweat and labor to earn it. I did.
Come on, it's not like "the government" is some guy who's taking all your money and using it to sip margaritas on the beach. "The government" is using your money, and my money, to operate schools, hospitals, roads, police, fire, the military, help out people who are in need, etc.
BTW - did you know that if you save a large percentage of your income (~60-70%, easy to do if you're anti-materialism), you can save enough to retire within 5 years? Imagine being retired in your 20s.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>it's not like "the government" is some guy who's taking all your money and using it to sip margaritas on the beach.
You might want to rethink that. There are "some guys" in Congress who do exactly that, or else use taypayer-paid government planes to fly themselves (and their kids) to Europe for a vacation, or..... I could go on and on.
Re: (Score:2)
That's slightly optimistic, but yes, you can save enough fairly quickly. As a rule of thumb, if you've got 15 times what you spend yearly, you don't need to work anymore.
Which means if you save half your income, you're done saving in 15 years, assuming you want to continue living equally frugally. Most people probably don't. So no, you can't save enough to retire in 5 years, not the kind of retirement most people would want anyway.
You can however, without even going to extremes, retire by the time you're 40
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My wife called me this morning and say she was going to donate so I gave her the texting number to do it. She said no to the texting because she wanted to give $100. It was uncomfortable for me at first. We are far from rich, have a mortgage, 4 kids, etc. But it took me about 15 seconds and I was on board. It wasn't her convincing me because she didn't try. It was me looking inside and being ok with it. $10 would be easy for us. $100 will cause a little discomfort. I'm ashamed at myself that it too
Re: (Score:2)
My appetite for donating was diminished somewhat when I heard that some Haitians were protesting by stacking up barricades of dead corpses and rocks (blocking relief efforts in the process) because handouts weren't getting to them fast enough. I guess no matter what country one looks at, there's always the few ungrateful bastards who do shit like that instead of focusing their energy on helping others.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave one hundred. I'd give more if the government had not sucked-away almost $25,000 in taxes last year.
Wait a second. The government only sucked away $25,000 in taxes, not $30,000. Doesn't that mean you have an extra $5,000 to give? Are you asking us to believe you wouldn't be giving us the same line if your tax bill was only $20,000? Or does $25,000 just happen to be the a priori number at which you can't afford to give any more.
Not knocking your donation at all; that was very generous of you. I'm just saying don't blame the government for you not being able to give more.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The government only sucked away $25,000 in taxes, not $30,000.
Only? That was over 40% of my earnings. That means I was a virtual slave of Uncle Sam from January to June 2nd, where all the money earned during that time was sent to the U.S. or State governments.
let's follow the money (Score:1, Insightful)
Is there a way to follow all this money closely. One slip up in mismanagement and this phenomenon is history.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes there is a way to follow the money. I'm 95% certain that the Red Cross is still using Raisers Edge to track their fund raising. It's a trivial matter to generate a campaign report that details who gave the money and what fund it went to. As far as tracking it from the fund to actual recipient, I think you're going to find that it gets wasted in the same way most charitable donations get wasted. Well over 50% of the money gets consumed in administrative overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:let's follow the money (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're going to find that it gets wasted in the same way most charitable donations get wasted. Well over 50% of the money gets consumed in administrative overhead.
The redcross is not most charities; they have a very good reputation for low overhead. Katrina lost only 9% of your donation to overhead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross [wikipedia.org]. The red cross is one of the few charities I still donate to because of their low overhead costs.
And GP, the red cross has been around since before 1900 and whatever slip ups they might be accused of, people are still donating.
Re: (Score:2)
If they won't take my blood they can't have my money. Apparently anyone who has spent 6+ months in Europe has a level of culture too high for the average American to deal with during a transfusion.
That and their CEO makes $565,000/year, plus they spend about 11% of their intake on overhead and took a $100 million government bailout.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I run the Interactive department for one of the key non-profits involved in this effort. We've been working around the clock since the earthquake to set up online donations, informational pages, disaster-coordination tools like haiti.ushahidi.com, and mobile giving. 100% of the money is going to Haiti, starting tonight (as credit card transactions have cleared.) No one is taking "administrative fees."
Re: (Score:2)
There are no local authorities left in Haiti. (Score:2)
Really, one of the first news is that the Presidential Palace was destroyed.
For all practical matters it seems like Haiti has stopped having a functioning government (and no, I know that the demise of the Palace would not necessarily imply the collapse of government, but I am using it as a symbol, before you wise asshats point this out...).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As numerous people have pointed out, the 50% figure was way off base. I was just eluding to the point that just because the Red Cross sends ## million dollars of aid to Haiti doesn't mean that the Haitian's are really getting anywhere close to the full 100% of those millions.
Administrative overhead isn't the only drain on a donation. There are huge logistical costs involved in just about any sort of relief effort. Sending $10 worth of food to a place like Haiti might end up costing $100 once you include
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen posting on Craigslist for positions with non-profits paying 50K a year or more. Not exactly a towering wage to be
Re:let's follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
So, my question to you is: Can you volunteer full time, half time? Specially right know, who can afford to leave their jobs for weeks to go to Haiti to volunteer full time?
10% overhead is a very reasonable figure if we cannot bother to get our butts out of the couch and go there ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So do I. And that is the reason I am happy to donate money as long as the organization use it wisely.
There are a lot of NGOs who do a great job even, if they are paying some of their people. And working for one of them is usually a big pay cut from what one would get on private companies, so you will get committed people even if you are paying them a salary.
Of course, there are the ones with 50% overhead as well as scammers, but that is our job as donors, to do a decent research before giving any money.
Re:let's follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying you refuse to give to any charities because there may be some amount of waste in them is just a way for you to rationalize your own selfishness. The fact is these organizations do far more good than any of us would be capable of or willing to do on our own. Because we won't or can't go out and dig new wells in Africa or help rebuild houses in Haiti or any of the other things these charities do, we give money to them to help them do it instead. They in turn hire people who know how to do this stuff in the most effective and efficient way possible.
Re:let's follow the money (Score:4, Insightful)
There are definitely "charities" that, even if not total scams, spend far too much on paying their CEOs and executive directors and so forth, and sending them on important fact finding missions to poor(but pleasantly sunny) places. You definitely want to avoid those.
However, the point of a charity is not to assemble the greatest concentration of self-sacrificing moral goodness available; but to turn donations(in dollars or in kind) into results that match the stated goal of the charity. The measure of a charity's efficiency, and thus its worth as a possible donation recipient, is determined by how efficiently it does so. There are most likely some cases where volunteers are, in fact, the most efficient means. There are others where expensive experts are, in all likelihood, the most efficient.
You donate to a charity because you want your money to effect its goals, whether the goals are pulling people out of the rubble, vaccinating children, reducing unplanned pregnancies, filing FOIA requests, or whatever. Why judge them on how they distribute their resources, rather than on how efficiently they achieve their results?
Re: (Score:2)
There is less waste when you give to non-profits who have salaried employees, because they know what they're doing. It is far more wasteful when you are relying on volunteers who may or may not show up, there are no defined divisions of labor, there are no communications systems, etc. That's what happened after the tsunami, which didn't have the non-profit infrastructure, and most of the food and supplies that were donated rotted at the ports and airports because there were none of what you called 'highly
Re: (Score:2)
I assure you that someone, somewhere is getting rich(er) from millions of 'administrative costs'. That's why I never give money to any charitable organization that has a salaried staff.
Agreed. That's why I'm giving all of my money to Scientology, where they make recruits work for free. Zero overhead, hard to beat that!
Re: (Score:2)
Some of that money's going to be wasted, you need to accept this. It's utter chaos out there and the people that need help the most are not always going to be the ones that get it first, simply because it's harder to get it to them. There are going to be warehouses full of supplies with nobody to distribute them. Somewhere else there will be people ready to give out aid parcels but their supplies won't have turned up. That's just the nature of the beast. Relief efforts like this are really hard and nec
Doctors Without Borders/Small Dog Electronics (Score:1, Interesting)
Small Dog Electronics, an Apple Specialist (and a darn fine one at that) matched customer donations, up to $200 per customer, and will be sending over $20,000 to Doctors Without Borders in the coming days! Check them out, smalldog.com. Good people.
This will not treat the true cause (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, but it's not that clear-cut. An analogy can be drawn to Africa where giving countries food and water doesn't solve any of the root problems, and can even foster dependencies, making the root cause even worse. Still, the inexorable wall every organization or individual has to face is that there's no point fixing the long run if everyone is going to die of starvation and lack of medical care within the week. Sure, we'd all like to change their government, build infrastructure, and
Re:This will not treat the true cause (Score:4, Insightful)
WRONG, the corporations paid the farmers pathetic prices for their crops because they were desperate and with agriculture being the only means of earning a living everyone in the country turned to farming, they tore down every tree in site in order to use every bit of land so they could earn enough just to survive. The worst part about this happened much later, with large areas of land in Haiti virtually treeless due to over-farming, Haiti got pounded by hurricanes three years in a row. With no trees to hold the ground into place when there was flooding large areas of land simply washed away killing thousands.
If the world really wants to help Haiti we need to do three things....
1.) Forgive much of Haiti's debt
2.) Lift all of the ridiculous restrictions that came with the debt
3.) Restrict foreign corporations and states from meddling in the country's politics
Sensible (Score:1)
I hope (not pray--I'm atheist) your family is well. It's clear they were in bad shape before the earthquake.
How? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
can't we just give up? (Score:2)
Suppose your dog is really really sick. It's hopeless. He's not going to get any better, and he's in a lot of pain. What do you do?
If it's not right to leave a dog suffering like that, how can it be right for a country?
Depending on how we put Haiti down, we might even get rid of the invasive species and then reboot the ecosystem. It could be a nice place in 100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."
- Captain Picard (TNG: "Symbiosis")
Yeah sure. (Score:2)
But there is a context prior to that.
When Haiti became independent, the French embargoed the country and eventually managed to wrestle a commitment from the country to pay for their freedom. In my country we call that blackmailing, I don't know how you call it. Haiti was paying that money as late as the middle of last century.
Then the cleptocrats Duvaliers (father and son, read about them, fucking bastards) ruled the country thanks to their impeccable credentials as anti Communists (guess which country was
Great coverage on Boing Boing (Score:3, Informative)
I donated to Mercy Corps the old fashioned way, by entering a credit card number into a website.
Boing Boing's Xeni Jardin has posted some interesting stuff on Boing Boing. It seems that enough of the high-techie infrastructure survived to allow people to keep in touch and look for lost relatives:
The internet is a vital form of communication, as are cellphones—when they work—and she is seeing people in Haiti using social networking services as a means to try and locate missing loved ones within Haiti. The environment is so chaotic and roads so badly damaged that even in-country, mobile technology and web-based social networking services like Facebook are playing a vital role in the reconnection process. Don't assume that because Haiti is so poor, nobody's using the internet. She says cell service has been spotty, with certain carriers performing better than others. She connected to us using WIMAX, and the degree to which that service has performed during the disaster makes her a real believer in the promise of that particular wireless technology.
AIDG's Catherine Lainé, live from Haiti (BB Video) [boingboing.net]
Update from Doctors Without Borders team in Port-au-Prince [boingboing.net] (Cool inflatable MASH-like field hospital!)
Interest Side Note - Trouble Getting Donations Out (Score:4, Interesting)
While the phone companies are looking at how to speed this up, am I the only one who believes that this would be a good way for some banks to earn back some credibility? It seems like they could give the Red Cross a 90 day loan to give them the money today, at 0%. Makes them look really good.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this the way the Red Cross typically works?
They pay for the current disaster from their general fund, and donations go into the fund for the *next* disaster. That way, when something like this happens they don't have to wait for people to begin contributing before they can spring into action.
I mean, I can understand your concern, but on the other hand-- if Red Cross had that money in-hand right now, would they be able to do more than they are already doing? I'd wager they're more limited by the inacce
Re: (Score:1)
It would make them look good but they aren't going to do it because they don't need to look good. They don't give a rat's ass about anything except next quarter's margin.
Re: (Score:2)
A second article states that it usually takes 90 days [www.ctv.ca] for the donation to be transferred.
While the phone companies are looking at how to speed this up, am I the only one who believes that this would be a good way for some banks to earn back some credibility? It seems like they could give the Red Cross a 90 day loan to give them the money today, at 0%. Makes them look really good.
Forget the loan with 0% interest, how about the banks match the amount, dollar for dollar?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you were right, 30 days was for Canadian charities; the 90 day figure was for "some" American ones.
Now that Technology has caught up (Score:2)
If people were willing to vote for American Idol, they would probably be willing to donate to AID using the exact same services.
I think it was just a matter of not being able to pledge money through your phone so effortlessly and efficiently. Giving your bank account info to some aid organization over the phone was more expensive and time consuming. Plus they take money monthly and not everyone wants to cover Red Cross' Paycheck unless they are actively working on an emergency like this one.
So now what excu
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's the same reason why people started to buy music online a lot once it became convenient to do so. Ditto for the popularity of services such as Steam, etc..
In general, if you make parting with one's money as easy as a few clicks / button presses, you tap directly into "impulse spending", driven by emotion of the moment. I've been reading about the consequences of the earthquake in a newspaper at lunch, saw the photos and the estimated death toll, and then noticed the phone number for SMS donatio
You can help too (Score:1)
http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/donations/ [msf.org]
Or Unicef, so many children need help at this moment... So many are either alone or hurt.
http://www.supportunicef.org/site/pp.asp?c=9fLEJSOALpE&b=1023561 [supportunicef.org]
Apparently I donated 24 times last year (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
CHaritable donation (Score:2)
Re:Charitable donation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Print off your statement.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how you guys have it set up in the States, but here in Canada, the non-profits who set up a similar donate-by-SMS scheme have also made a website where you can go and print out a receipt, specifically for tax purposes. You may have something like that as well.
and the money won't even go to Haiti (Score:2)
Red Cross is notorious for only spending what they feel they need to. In other disasters only 10% of the money donated ever reached the actual disaster, and of that, there was a huge overhead.
Sorry folks, just not worth it. Do a little digging first, there are MUCH better charities out there that have a LOT more (or all!) of the money you donate going directly to Haiti.
Yo Grark
Re:and the money won't even go to Haiti (Score:4, Informative)
These people seem to disagree with you. To get on this list, 75% or
more has to go to program services.
http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Haiti.html [charitywatch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
As an example of an alternative, I gave to americares.org. They get an excellent Charity Navigator rating.
As for the Red Cross, the fact that they only spend what they think they need to is not necessarily bad in my book. It means they'll have money & supplies for the lower profile problems they tackle. If they can't efficiently use all they are given for a particular problem, I'd rather they don't waste it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people donated to Red Cross after 9/11, but the only real logistical issue the had was a blood shortage due to the lack of long-term storage facilities: blood doesn't keep more than 40 days or so under typical storage conditions, so you really can't stock up.
They wanted to use much of the money donated for the construction of cryogenic facilities and other infrastructure improvements to be better prepared for the next disaster, but unfortunately they had advertised that donating would be specifical
Proud to be American (Score:3, Insightful)
At times like these it really makes you proud to be an American to see the great amount of donations going out even in this terrible economy and good to see people have sympathy for others.
Donations by private Americans a lot of the time donate more than a lot of countries combined but make sure you donate to a reputable charity because online fraud is at an all time high after incidents like these.
I have two family members who are R.N.'s and a neighbor on wait with the Orange County, CA disaster team, cash is one of the best things you can donate because it costs so much to transport the material.
UPS is shipping anything for free under 50lbs
$4 million so far donated to the Salvation Army by text
$8 million donated to the state department by text
and now I am sure the Red Cross will step it up with this
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah no doubt, especially the French for their quick response time as they had some of the first crews on the ground. But not much can be done until the U.S. military brings in the heavy hardware and they are the ones who have great majority of C-17's to transport cranes, generators, water purification, etc..
Americans get a lot of crap around here and they seem to dwell on the bad news a lot around here, it just needs to be put into perspective that the U.S.A.F and Navy are the ones who will be doing the h
Re: (Score:2)
As a citizen of a 3rd world country (Score:1, Informative)
I would suggest that if you decided to donate money, do it thru Red Cross (which I choose), Unesco or any multinational organizations. Do not give it to embassies of the country, if they have asking for donations too. If you do, chances are that the money will not only not help the desperate people who need it, but will make even richer the usually corrupt local government.
Text 'haiti' to 90999 (Score:1)
Text 'haiti' to 90999
I can't believe its not in the article or been edited to go in the summary.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/14/cashmore.haiti.earthquake.relief.technology/ [cnn.com]
Also this was on Colbert last night
Re: (Score:2)
The above information is for U.S. In Canada, "haiti" can be texted to 45678 - that will go through Salvation Army.
I got your link right here, pal (Score:2)
**ALL organizations collecting for disaster relief in Haiti are eligible to receive fee waivers. Please send an e-mail to nonprofit@paypal.com for fee waiver consideration.
Too bad they don't mention this on the http://www.paypal.com/ [paypal.com] page.
Re:pointless... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
haiti [sic] needs complete rebuilding [...]
From what I have heard on the news about the status of building safety I would agree but, they need aid first. Let's not put the cart before the horse here. Haiti needs a lot of things and they all have a priority.
Uh, they need things like water *yesterday* [...]
Keep in mind all the 'aid' that was rushed into the areas devastated by Katrina... Truck loads of clothing and food that rotted in place as a result of little to no planning on how to get the aid to those who need it. I fully understand the desire to rush in and save the day, sadly that is mos
Re: (Score:2)
you don't understand Haiti (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people didn't have water **before** the quake. The same goes for electrical power. It's only the well-to-do Haitians (probably having relatives in the USA to send money) who are experiencing this for the first time.
Lots of Haitians normally use the "flying toilet". You poop in an old plastic bag, step outside, and throw it as far as you can. I am not kidding. It's popular in Kenya too.
There is a reasonable argument that Haiti is better off than a place like post-Katrina New Orleans. No running water? C
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Many people buy water in containers. This can be a sizable chunk of their budget.
It really is horrible, and always has been. Look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Haiti [wikipedia.org]
Note the distinction between "broad definition" and "house connections". The city water situation is 24% house connection, 28% something else, and 48% **nothing** at all. (BTW, elsewhere I get a figure of "less than half" having access to clean drinking water)
Also note the "mostly intermittent" continuity of supply.
Re: (Score:1)
The USAF is flying is using C-17s to fly in relief supplies. They are not exactly small. Their payload is 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo according to Wikipedia.
Given the limitations of the airport capacity, this looks like a great opportunity to show the capabilities of the V-22 Osprey. With a range of nearly 900 miles, they could fly from Florida and land in helicopter mode virtually anywhere in Haiti. With aerial refueling, they would not need to take on fuel in Haiti, which is another scarce resource.
Re: (Score:2)
I think flaming Osprey fuselages are the last things the Haitians need landing on them. Might want to use something more reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
C-5 Galaxy can do it, not that you need pavement (Score:2)
You get 9974 feet (3040 meters) of asphalt in Haiti.
You need 8400 feet (2600 meters) for a C-5B to take off. That fits, and you'll be leaving empty anyway. You can knock 30% off of that if you use a C-5M.
Landings are even easier. They take only 3600 feet (1100 meters). You could do one on each end of the runway if you dare.
Finally, remember that this is a military cargo plane. It has lots of giant low-pressure tires. Plain dirt will work as long as you don't mind bulldozing/grading the ruts out of it after
Re: (Score:2)
'haiti needs complete rebuilding not temporary relief which will vanish once the earthquake new disappears from the front pages. it needed that much money and more before the quake even hit. not it needs demolition and rebuilding not quick fixes and temporary aid.'
Haiti desperately needs both immediate relief and longer-term help. Several of the aid organisations now responding to the emergency already have long-term commitments to Haiti. One I happen to know about is Oxfam:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_ [oxfam.org.uk]
Re:And how many won't give? (Score:4, Insightful)
You want to use guns to take money away from people and give it to other people, according to your whims, and that's what you call "fair"?
Re: (Score:2)