Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Good deed

  1. Jun 9, 2005 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I watched part of a program about this team that builds houses for people
    in need in the US, This team built two houses for this family, one of them
    had been shot four times in a case of mistaken identity by a gang member
    and left disabled.
    The family was sent on holiday for eight days and on return the houses
    had been built, with a host of extras.
    I nearly chocked up a few times, but is this true?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 9, 2005 #2
    The show Extreme Makeover: Home edition? With that one guy and his microphone, Ty Penn-something? If that is the one, then I would say yes, I have watched it a few times, and it seems quite real.
     
  4. Jun 9, 2005 #3

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes that show exists (as bad as it is). Like most things on TV it's done for ratings. If you want to see the same thing done for true charity purposes, look into Habitat for Humanity.
     
  5. Jun 9, 2005 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I thought it was to good to be real charity.
     
  6. Jun 9, 2005 #5
    Does anyone remember that show 'Challenge Anneka'?? It was on BBC in the early nineties. The lovely bottomed Anneka used to get these tasks to build something for charity in 2 days. Building orphanages and stuff.
    She just used to go up to people and say something like "I see you`ve got a ton of concrete blocks. Give them to me, I am building a childrens hospital" and because the people didn`t want to seem greedy, and also because they`d get some product placement on TV they always said yes. It was a pretty class show, even if people only ever remember her ass.

    Probably not real charity either, but I think most of the people that built the stuff were volunteers.

    http://www.ukgameshows.com/index.php/Challenge_Anneka
     
  7. Jun 9, 2005 #6

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How can anyone forget Anneka and her ass, i only remember her flying
    around in a helicopter and running around finding clues.
     
  8. Jun 9, 2005 #7
  9. Jun 9, 2005 #8
    I think there was two shows. One was treasure hunt, and she had to run around finding things. and she then went on to challenge anneka. Conveniently, since she was running most of the time, the camera man was filming her running away from him the whole time in all her lycra glory.

    I know way to much about this.....
     
  10. Jun 9, 2005 #9

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I know way to much about this..... :biggrin:
     
  11. Jun 9, 2005 #10

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I admit it, I like that show. No, it's not a non-profit charity, especially with all the product placement and advertising (I bet after just one show you can guess who their two main corporate sponsors are). And of course the local contractors who show up to do the job know they're getting tons of free advertising and will have plenty of work after the show, so it's probably motivated more by the advertising than charity, but the show does get viewers thinking about charitable projects. It would be nice if they'd throw in a plug for Habitat for Humanity during the show or during a commercial break...remind people that they too can do this for people.

    I sometimes wonder how many of these people get this completely newly built huge house and turn around and sell it! Or how do they pay the property taxes when this thing gets assessed way higher than the old shack they used to have?

    I have my concerns of putting people into houses when they can't afford a house. It sounds all warm and fuzzy, but when you think beyond the construction of the house itself, these are still poor people, and even once a house is paid for, it can be expensive to live in. There are property taxes, homeowner's insurance, higher electric and heating bills for a bigger living space than an apt, maintenance (both tools you'll need for the routine stuff and having to hire someone in for the bigger jobs), plus the time it takes to do all that maintenance...again, if you're poor, you might have to work two or three jobs, so where's the time to do it yourself if you can't afford to pay someone else to do it? Single family homes are less often near to public transportation, so then you need a car to get to and from work, etc. For most of the routine stuff and spread over time, it's not as much as paying for rent, but when the furnace breaks or the roof starts leaking and you suddenly need $5000 all at once to fix something major, where are they going to find it? So, I just don't know...it always sounds good on the front end, but in the long term, I'm not sure it's really a helpful thing. I'd like to know what those Habitat for Humanity houses look like 10 years down the road and what happens to the families that get them in the long term.
     
  12. Jun 9, 2005 #11

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Moonbear
    I admit it, I like that show. No, it's not a non-profit charity, especially with all the product placement and advertising (I bet after just one show you can guess who their two main corporate sponsors are). And of course the local contractors who show up to do the job know they're getting tons of free advertising and will have plenty of work after the show, so it's probably motivated more by the advertising than charity, but the show does get viewers thinking about charitable projects. It would be nice if they'd throw in a plug for Habitat for Humanity during the show or during a commercial break...remind people that they too can do this for people.

    And where did all them coppers come from, did they put crime on hold while
    filming this show?
     
  13. Jun 9, 2005 #12

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Nothing wrong with doing it for the advertising. I've always thought organizations like the Red Cross ought to have sponsors for disaster relief. What better way to generate the necessary supplies than donations from corporations that know the news media will be filming the effects of the disaster and the relief effort. Better their advertising dollars go to disaster relief than to the news networks.

    Or is there a problem with that? Would the TV stations catch on and take care to avoid filming any product identification that reduces their income from advertising?


    That could be a problem. I still remember the woman who won $40,000 in a lottery, spent the after-tax winnings, and then the welfare department found out about her winnings. They cut off her welfare, since an income of $40,000 in one year puts her income too high, plus they wanted reimbursement for any money they paid her between the time she won and the time the welfare dept cut off her payments. She had a new car and a few other luxuries, but hadn't quite had the foresight to save enough money to live on for the next year. She had to sell her car (for quite a bit less than she paid for it since it was now a used car) in order to live for the next year.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Good deed
  1. Goodness (Replies: 1)

  2. Good Deed (Replies: 9)

  3. Good documentary (Replies: 3)

Loading...