¿eX-whY? AdVentures Promo Video

Promo Video

Jalil Testimonial by Pastor L. J. Jennings

photo"I thank God for you and for bringing you into my life and for the ministry you have been given to help the people of God!"- Pastor L. J. Jennings, Kingdom Builders Christian Fellowship

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation FREE FOOD Program

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation FREE FOOD Program

Lennox Lewis ~ Top 10 Knockouts

Client Lennox Lewis ~ Top 10 Knockouts

Hammer & Deion ESPN Sports Bloopers

Jalil Produced Hammer & Deion ESPN Sports Bloopers

1995 Pizza Hut Commercial with Cowboys Deion Sanders and Jerry Jones

1995 Pizza Hut Commercial with Cowboys Deion Sanders and Jerry Jones

Jalil Co-Promote Bowe vs. Holyfield Fights

Jalil Co-Promote Bowe vs. Holyfield Fights

Client Deion Sanders

Hall of Fame Client Deion Sanders

Jalil Top 5% MOST Viewed LinkedIn

Jalil top MOST Viewed LinkedIn Profile

Trader Joe’s Emeryville KPFA Interview

Haas School of Business and Y.E.A.H.

SemiFreddis,The Bread Project and Pepe's

Ex-Why VIP Events

Oct 2017
S M T W T F S
  
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 

Santa Fe Elementary School’s Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

Join SUPERSTARS Entertainment and Sports Network

Your Name

Your Email (required)

Your Message

Distribution of Wealth Inequality in America

Support Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Efforts with Your Giving

AMWF Suppporters

Sponsorship of a Benefit!

AMWF-KPFA Promo Video

GOD sent me an Angel- Hammer

"hammer-grammysGOD sent me an ANGEL" - Hammer speaking about Abdul-Jalil

Client Marvin Gaye

Client Marvin Gaye

Clients and Friends MJ and Hammer

Clients and Friends MJ and Hammer

Tribute to Emanuel Steward

Lennox Lewis’ Master Knockouts

  • Part 2 of 2 Interviews of Abdul-Jalil, Nanita Strong and Imam Wali Mohammed on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360)
    Part 2 of 2 Interviews of Abdul-Jalil, Nanita Strong and Imam Wali Mohammed on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360) Abdul-Jalil, Nanita Strong and Imam Wali Mohammed discuss Feeding the needy on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360)in Part 2 of 2 Interviews by Niamat Shaheed. AmericanMuslim360 (AM360) AmericanMuslim360 Premium Channel is about Islam and being Muslim in American. AmericanMuslim360 has programing space […]
  • Part 1 of 2 Interviews of Abdul-Jalil on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360)
    Part 1 of 2 Interviews on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360) AmericanMuslim360 Premium Channel is about Islam and being Muslim in American. AmericanMuslim360 has programing space available for Muslims who wish to host their own show. AM360 goal is to become a Network Channel in 2013, creating the AmericanMuslim360 Network Channel broadcasting an Islamic focused, 24/7 Muslim hosted […]
  • KNBR Law of Sports broadcast on "Bounce, The Don Barksdale Story"
    When former UCLA basketball player Don Barksdale died of cancer of the esophagus in March 1993,his passing was noted in a two-sentence obituary in The Times, a woefully inadequate summation of an extraordinary life. Barksdale, a 6-foot-6 center from Berkeley and a Bay Area legend not only as an athlete but also as a TV […]
  • Law of Sports w-AJ, Doug, Ivan 12-4-10
    KNBR "Law of Sports" broadcast on "OUT. The Glenn Burke Story" with Abdul-Jalil, Doug Harris, and Ivan Golde on 12-4-10.
  • KGO Radio's broadcast discussion of "Out. The Glenn Burke Story"
    Glenn Burke's journey through baseball began and ended in Oakland, California. His sports career had many stops along the way, starting as a multi-sport star at Berkeley High School, followed by a brief stint at the University of Nevada, Reno as a prized basketball recruit, and then moving into professional baseball with the Los Angeles […]
  • Hip Hop and The Spread of Islam Part 1 of 2
    Abdul-Jalil's lecture at U. C. Berkeley on "Hip Hop and The Spread of Islam"
  • National Balsa Law Conference Part 2 of 2
    Abdul-Jalil's National Balsa Law Conference at Howard University School of Law Lecture on "Entertainment Law- The Art of Representing Professional Athelets and Entertainers"
  • National Balsa Law Conference Part 1 of 2
    Abdul-Jalil's National Balsa Law Conference at Howard University School of Law Lecture on "Entertainment Law- The Art of Representing Professional Athelets and Entertainers"

Please Support AMWFT Efforts with Your Secure Paypal Sponsorship Donation

Sponsorship of a Benefit!

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks

Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2

Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2

Clients Oscar De La Hoya vs Julio Cesar Chavez

Clients Oscar De La Hoya vs Julio Cesar Chavez

Reggies Prayer

Cal Coach Mike Montgomery gets Jos. Phelps

Cal Coach Mike Montgomery gets Jos. Phelps

Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1

Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1

Julio Cesar Chavez Sr. Highlights

Trader Joe’s Emeryville Customer Appreciation

The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: Black Identity Extremists

The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: Black Identity Extremists EXCLUSIVE The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: ‘Black Identity Extremists Law enforcement calls it a violent movement. Critics call it racist.The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: ‘Black Identity Extremists’ – Foreign Policy Read it here FERGUSON, MO – AUGUST 19: Police point to a demonstrator who has his arms raised before moving in to arrest him on August 19, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Violent outbreaks have taken place in Ferguson since the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer on August 9th. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) As white supremacists prepared to descend on Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, the FBI warned about a new movement that was violent, growing, and racially motivated. Only it wasn’t white supremacists; it was “black identity extremists.” Amid a rancorous debate over whether the Trump administration has downplayedthe threat posed by white supremacist groups, the FBI’s counterterrorism division has declared that black identity extremists pose a growing threat of premeditated violence against law enforcement. “The FBI assesses it is very likely Black Identity Extremist (BIE) perceptions of police brutality against African Americans spurred an increase in premeditated, retaliatory lethal violence against law enforcement and will very likely serve as justification for such violence,” reads the report, marked for official use only and obtained by Foreign Policy. The August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was the catalyst for widespread anger and violence, the FBI report says, concluding that continued “alleged” police abuses have fueled more violence. “The FBI assesses it is very likely incidents of alleged police abuse against African Americans since then have continued to feed the resurgence in ideologically motivated, violent criminal activity within the BIE movement,” the report states. Some 748 people have been shot and killed by police so far in 2017, including at least 168 African-Americans. The report, dated Aug. 3 — just nine days before the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned deadly — appears to be the first known reference to “black identity extremists” as a movement. But former government officials and legal experts said no such movement exists, and some expressed concern that the term is part of a politically motivated effort to find an equivalent threat to white supremacists. A former senior counterterrorism and intelligence official from the Department of Homeland Security who reviewed the document at FP’s request expressed shock at the language. “This is a new umbrella designation that has no basis,” the former official said. “There are civil rights and privacy issues all over this.” The concept of “black identity extremists” appears to be entirely new. FP found only five references to the term in a Google search; all were to law enforcement documents about domestic terrorism from the last two months. One of those online references is to law enforcement training on identifying “domestic terror groups and criminally subversive subcultures which are encountered by law enforcement professionals on a daily basis.” Among the six acts of premeditated violence linked to black identity extremists — it excludes violence toward police carried out in the normal course of their duties — the reports cites the July 2016 shooting of 11 police officers in Dallas. The shooter, Micah Johnson, was reportedly angry at police violence. “Based on Johnson’s journal writings and statements to police, he appeared to have been influenced by BIE ideology,” the FBI report states. The attack took place during a Black Lives Matter protest of police shootings, though the BLM movement is not mentioned by name in the report. Yet those involved in the Black Lives Matter movement have voiced concerns about FBI surveillance. DeRay McKesson, an activist involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, told FP that the FBI visited his house in the run-up to the Republican National Convention. “I spoke about the FBI visit to my house and the houses of other activists in our final meeting with [President Barack] Obama,” he said. “There is a long tradition of the FBI targeting black activists and this is not surprising,” McKesson said. The FBI declined to comment on the report itself and did not respond to specific questions, but in an emailed statement to FP, the bureau defended its tracking of “black identity extremists,” saying that “the FBI cannot initiate an investigation based solely on an individual’s race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or the exercise of First Amendment rights.” In its August report, the FBI said it expects further attacks by black identity extremists, driven by both the perception and the reality of unfair treatment at the hands of police officers. “The FBI further assesses it is very likely additional controversial police shootings of African Americans and the associated legal proceedings will continue to serve as drivers for violence against law enforcement,” the report says. Some experts and former government officials said the FBI seemed to be trying to paint disparate groups and individuals as sharing a radical, defined ideology. And in the phrase “black identity extremist” they hear echoes of the FBI’s decades-long targeting of black activists as potential radicals, a legacy that only recently began to change. “They are grouping together Black Panthers, black nationalists, and Washitaw Nation,” said the former homeland security official. “Imagine lumping together white nationals, white supremacists, militias, neo-Nazis, and calling it ‘white identity extremists.’” The FBI is linking the people discussed in the report based only on them being black, rather than on any sort of larger ideological connection, the official said. “The race card is being played here deliberately.” “The race card is being played here deliberately.” The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: ‘Black Identity Extremists’ – Foreign Policy Read it here Michael German, a former FBI agent and now a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program, said manufacturing this type of threat was not new. He has criticized earlier FBI reports on “black separatists,” arguing that they conflated radical groups operating in the 1970s with attacks in 2010 and later, even though there was no obvious connection. The use of terms like “black identity extremists” is part of a long-standing FBI attempt to define a movement where none exists. “Basically, it’s black people who scare them,” German said. Even former officials who view the government’s concerns about black separatists as legitimate balked at the term “black identity extremist,” and point out that the threat from individuals or groups who want to establish their own homeland is much less than from the far right. In 2009, Daryl Johnson, then a Department of Homeland Security intelligence analyst, warned of the rise of right-wing extremism, setting off a firestorm among congressional critics. Johnson, who left the department in 2010, said he could think of no reason why the FBI would create a new category for so-called black identity extremists. “I’m at a loss,” he replied, when asked about the term. “I have no idea of why they would come up with a new term.” There have been concerns about rising violence among black separatist groups in recent years, he said, but it does not approach the threat of right-wing extremism. “When talking about white supremacists versus black supremacists, there are way more white supremacists,” Johnson said. For historians and academics who have looked at the history of FBI surveillance of black Americans, the report also smacks of the sort of blatant racism the bureau has worked hard to leave behind. From the time J. Edgar Hoover took over the anti-radical division in the FBI at the height of the first “red scare” in 1919, the bureau began systematically surveilling black activists. Read more from FP: FBI and DHS Assessment Outlined Threat of Lone Offenders Targeting Las Vegas: The U.S. government warned of possible attacks on entertainment venues and mass gatherings. California Is Already Preparing for a North Korean Nuclear Attack:Beware of radioactive pets, and don’t expect the feds to show up anytime soon. Senate Probe Gets ‘Clearer Picture’ of Possible Trump, Russia Collusion: Sen. Richard Burr said his committee’s investigation has “expanded slightly.” “Black protests get conflated for the bureau [with communism], and it begins there,” said William Maxwell, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, who has researched the FBI’s monitoring of black writers in the 20th century. What followed, according to Maxwell, was decades of FBI pursuit of black radicals in the belief, often mistaken, that they were part of a larger subversive movement. “It’s deep in the bureau’s DNA,” he said. Lately, that seemed to be changing. As FBI director, James Comey famously kept a copy of the Martin Luther King Jr. wiretap order on his desk as a reminder of the bureau’s past abuses and made new agents learn the history of the FBI’s pursuit of the civil rights leader. The FBI also appeared to be focusing more attention on the threat of white supremacists. In May, the FBI warned that white supremacist violence was growing, according to a report obtained and published by FP. That same report noted that white supremacists were responsible for more attacks in the United States than any other extremist group, including Islamic extremists. Critics, however, accuse President Donald Trump of shifting attention away from right-wing violence. This year, the Trump administration decided to focus the Department of Homeland Security’s “countering violent extremism” program on Islamic terrorism and deprioritized funding to counter white supremacist groups. The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: ‘Black Identity Extremists’ – Foreign Policy Read it here “To hear there is a new initiative targeting black identity extremists is surprising given that shift,” said Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law. Maxwell, the Washington University professor, had an even darker view. “It’s classic Hoover-style labeling with little bit of maliciousness and euphemism wrapped up together,” he said. “The language — black identity extremist — strikes me as weird and really a continuation of the worst of Hoover’s past.” “The language — black identity extremist — strikes me as weird and really a continuation of the worst of Hoover’s past.” In a sense, the FBI’s desire to identify a unifying ideological underpinning to what are often individual violent acts is not surprising, said David Garrow, a historian who wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of MLK. “Security agencies want to perceive a threat that is political, a threat that ideological,” Garrow said, “but what we’re actually witnessing is men, almost entirely men, acting out in violent criminal ways and grasping at some chimera of political justification.” But the document itself smacks of incompetence more than conspiracy, according to Garrow, who reviewed a copy of the report provided by FP. “The immediate instinct is to think [the FBI] are a threat,” he said. “My immediate instinct is to wonder whether they are minimally competent.” Garrow, who has reviewed decades’ worth of FBI documents for his work, warned against seeing this report as proof that the FBI is illegally targeting black Americans. “They are often so clueless,” he said of the FBI. “I don’t find them a threat.” But the former homeland security official said the report’s tendency to lump together different groups that have no obvious connection will make it harder for law enforcement to identify real threats. “It’s so convoluted — it’s compromising officer safety,” the former official said. And even though the report mentions in a footnote that “political activism” and “strong rhetoric” by themselves don’t amount to extremism and “may be constitutionally protected,” it identifies anger with police or “anti-white rhetoric” as indicators of a potential “violent threat.” “Just the term ‘black identity extremist’ is protected,” the former official said. “You can identify all you want.” The FBI, however, defended the classification in its statement to FP. “Domestic terrorism groups differ from traditional criminal groups in that they take action for a different purpose, to bring attention to a social or political cause,” the FBI wrote. “Therefore, their existence as a group has a legitimate purpose, at least in part. Their legitimate activity may include acts of protest, advocacy, and civil disobedience.” The FBI says there are “nine persistent extremist movements” in the United States at present. Those include “white supremacy, black identities, militia, sovereign citizens, anarchists, abortion, animal rights, environmental rights, and Puerto Rican Nationalism.” […]

Don’t Give Money To The Red Cross, It Won’t Save Houston

Don’t Give Money To The Red Cross, It Won’t Save Houston It has proven itself unequal to the task of massive disaster relief. We need a new kind of humanitarian response. By Jonathan M. Katz In 2004, I was just starting my first full-time job in a Washington newsroomwhen disaster struck. It was on the other side of the world: an extraordinarily powerful earthquake in Sumatra, Indonesia, that triggered a tsunami across the Indian Ocean. But thanks to CNN it felt like the anguish and terror were happening in the next cubicle. I still remember the fear on the fishermen’s faces and watching mothers cry as they searched for their children in the waves. Powerless, eager to help, I did the only thing I could think of: I went online and sent $20 to the American Red Cross. Thirteen years later, we’re watching another disaster, this time much closer to home. Tropical Storm Harvey, supercharged by a freakishly warm Gulf of Mexico, has slammed into the Texas coast and is now running a dayslong conveyor belt carrying trillions of gallons of water from the ocean to the sky to the bayous and streets of Houston. Highways have become rivers in America’s fourth-largest city. Apartment complexes are filling up like bathtubs. Dams are nearing failure. Thousands have had to be rescued from the still-rising floodwaters in the overbuilt, improperly drained city. The scariest part is that, with the water still rising, no one can really know how bad the damage has been so far or what is to come. Once again, most of us outside the zone feel powerless but want to help. Once again, leaders and noble souls are telling us the best way to do so is to turn to the best known, most bipartisanly loved brand in humanitarian relief. But I won’t be donating to the Red Cross this time. And after years of reporting on and inside some of the biggest disasters of the decade and change, I know what a costly mistake the focus on donating anywhere can be. Part of the problem is the American Red Cross’ track record when it comes to disasters. It isn’t great. I learned this best in Haiti, where I survived the Jan. 12, 2010, earthquake and ran the Associated Press bureau from 2007 until 2011. When the earthquake struck, killing an estimated 100,000 to 316,000 people, American Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern’s staff swung into action doing what it does best: raising money. Their appeal to “save lives,” aided by endorsements from President Obama and celebrities, and fueled by a pioneering text message campaign, raised a staggering $488 million. It quickly became clear that the organization’s biggest problem would be figuring out what to do with all that cash. The U.S. chapter had just three full-time staff in Haiti at the time of the disaster. Though it soon sent more, and subcontracted staff from the local Haitian Red Cross, the truth was that there wasn’t all that much they could do: ARC isn’t a medical aid group à la Doctors Without Borders. It doesn’t do development work or specialize in rebuilding destroyed neighborhoods. What it does best is provide immediate assistance—often in the form of blankets, hygiene kits, or temporary shelter—and as incredibly destructive as the earthquake was, there wasn’t half a billion dollars of tarps and hygiene kits to hand out. Staffers came up with all kinds of creative ways to unload the money, including handing it off to other aid groups that could use it better (after ARC had taken its customary 9 percent administrative cut). As it became increasingly clear that the entire earthquake response, from the lowliest neighborhood to the top floor of the United Nations Secretariat—had been a failure, ARC found itself scrambling to explain why the half a billion dollars it took hadn’t made a substantive difference in survivors’ lives. “There’s only so much money that can be forced through the emergency phase,” an ARC spokeswoman told me when I asked how it was possible that just a third of the money it had raised had even been committed, much less spent, two years later. What no one at the organization bothered to do was explain to the public—in Haiti or back in the States—that it had never needed anywhere near that much money in the first place. (In contrast, some NGOs state their fundraising goals in advance and cap or redirect donations once they have exceeded those amounts.) ARC was roundly blasted in the U.S. for its shambolic response to 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, with international observers warning that elements were so bad that they verged on criminal wrongdoing. Seven years later, despite an internal retooling effort, it failed again in 2012’s Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Isaac. (The response was “worse than the storm,” one Red Cross driver told ProPublica during its jaw-dropping investigation.) Typically, the organization has had more success responding to small-scale disasters; it’s common to hear stories people tell of the blankets and compassion they got from Red Cross volunteers after house fires. But even there, they’ve been getting into trouble: ARC’s 2015 response to a string of northern California wildfires was so bad—showing up unequipped and unprepared, shutting down other volunteer operations, and then failing to provide promised food or shelter on its own—that locals shunned the organization to focus on their own relief efforts. Worse than what we know is what we don’t. The ARC, which boasts annual revenues of more than $2.6 billion, is notoriously opaque when it comes to what it does with the money it raises for disasters. It has never produced a meaningful breakdown of its spending after the Haiti earthquake. If you look at RedCross.org right now, you’ll see a prominent link inviting you to “make a difference” by donating to its Harvey effort. But nowhere does it say what it will do with the money. A tiny video shows empty cots in a shelter. When I emailed and called the organization’s full-time media relations department Sunday and Monday asking how much it had raised so far, how much it thought the group might need, and what Red Cross volunteers and staff were doing in the response to Hurricane Harvey, I eventually got back this reply: “At this point in our active disaster response, we are unable to answer your questions by your deadline. Thank you for understanding.” I followed up again. A few hours later, the organization sent a second note saying it was providing food, cots, blankets, and other support to 6,000 people in various shelters across the region—again with no information about the cost or money raised so far. It isn’t just journalists who get the shaft. ARC’s leaders have misled Congress. In a scathing 2015 report, the federal Government Accountability Office noted that “no regular, independent evaluations are conducted of the impact or effectiveness of the Red Cross’s disaster services.” As ProPublica’s Justin Elliott has reported, many of these issues are the result of a team of former AT&T executives taking over a complex organization—one that manages tasks as critical and disparate as blood-banking and providing resources to military families, while operating in a blurred, neither-fish-nor-fowl zone with some of the privileges of a government agency (such as free rent for its D.C. headquarters) but the moneymaking latitude and lack of oversight of a private corporation. ARC and its defenders sometimes protest that there’s too much focus on them; that scores of other actors have also failed in their responses to the same disasters. In part, that’s just the other side of the double-edged sword that comes with having a higher profile than others and raising far more money than anyone else—for being, as McGovern likes to say, “a brand to die for.” The hard reality is that we still don’t know what the needs in Houston are going to be or who will be best to respond to them. But in another way, they are entirely right. There is too much focus on the ARC in disasters such as Harvey, in a way that goes beyond any one organization. The way our society handles disasters—first the calamity; then the outpouring of sympathy and donations; then the long, slow rebuild—is wrong. As humans have long known, it is easier, cheaper, and better to mitigate or prevent disasters from happening than to rescue victims and rebuild after them. We’ve known for centuries about the threat of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Experts have warned for years that the Texas coast needed to make serious investments to prepare for nigh-inevitable storms, including preparing mitigation specifically for intense, unprecedented floods worsened in part by climate change. It seems that some, including many of Houston’s hospitals, heeded those warnings and are benefiting from the preparation. Other sectors did not. At a systemic level, instead of taking those threats seriously, Texans elected a governor who distorts facts about climate change. Americans picked a president who—days before this disaster and moments before rushing to the defense of rampaging neo-Nazis—announced in front of his gilded elevator that he was scrapping federal construction standards that had required new projects to account for climate change’s effect on storms like Harvey. Local news organizations in Texas are maintaining lists of organizations, both local and run by the Red Cross, where those affected by the storm can get help and those inclined can send donations. Experts and experience say that, if you are going to donate to anyone from outside the disaster zone, send cash, not stuff. Boxes full of food, clothes, or other stuff will clog up supply lines and as likely as not go unused. Yet the hard reality is that we still don’t know what the needs in Houston and other parts of Texas or Louisiana are going to be or who will be best to respond to them. Millions of people are still in the middle of the storm, with the National Hurricane Center warning that some areas could get double the already awe-inducing amounts of rain they’ve already received. Survivors, in other words, haven’t even gotten past the emergency to take stock of the damage and really begin the difficult relief phase; if this was an earthquake, the ground would still be shaking. It is difficult for rescuers to get in. There is nowhere for most people to go. While there are heroic efforts going on right now by locals and neighbors to save as many as they can from the floods—efforts that authorities should encourage and help coordinate—the hard, frustrating reality is that there is not very much an untrained outsider can do to help once a complex disaster has begun. And with, at a bare minimum, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage expected and future storms on the way, the costs in cleaning up this mess and getting people back into their old lives again are going to be astronomical, on the level that only wealthy and powerful governments, and the combined power of their citizenry, will be able to address. Top Comment The author says we should “stop debating the stop debating the best place to send $20” and instead fully commit to fixing everything damaged, prevent future disasters, and address climate change. No. Send the $20 now. More… Some people get personally offended by talk like this. They are seeing pain, they are being generous, and they hope it might help—just like I did watching the pictures from Indonesia from my cubicle years ago. The people suffering in this storm deserve all of that and more. But what you learn when you really dive into these situations is that momentary intentions, no matter how kind, are not enough—not on this scale. Those past, ineffective, and opaque disaster responses, from Haiti to New Jersey to the Gulf Coast, have created a legacy of mistrust, not only of the Red Cross but of the entire humanitarian aid apparatus its iconic brand represents. We can’t afford to do that again. If we really care about the people of Houston and the rest of the Gulf Coast, we have to commit fully to a combined, sustained, serious response to recover and rebuild—meaning lots of money, lots of attention to helping those areas adapt for the future, and lots of concern for the people who we know are most vulnerable. We all need to come together to prevent future disasters, whether the growing risk of a major Oklahoma earthquake, a Caribbean tsunami, and especially the many threats we face from climate change. The sooner we acknowledge and act on that and stop debating the best place to send $20, the better off all of us will be. […]