We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, August 25. 2016
When It Comes to Sex, Baby Boomers Aren’t Normal
World's largest pearl
Our moral and intellectual superiors. Lefty Ivy-leaguers and their kin, bred to rule.
Obamacare Website No Longer Addresses 'You Can Keep Your Doctor'
Court rules California can trim current public employees' retirement
The police state of the US dept. of Agriculture
University To Students: You’re a Criminal If You Don’t Use Transgender Approved Language
Students can call me "Sir."
AP statement on Clinton Foundation donors
Wow. AP doing journalism
Perpetuation and Moderation: Trump’s Lincolnian Rhetoric
How to Save the Clinton Foundation
But why? It's a family slush fund, with 10% to charity
Hillary Clinton may just be running out the clock
Finland is smaller in population than NYC
To deter refugees, Norway readies fence on ex-Cold War border
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
AP statement on Clinton Foundation donors
So more than half of all the people that huddled with Clinton were donors to her family’s foundation? Grab the can of damage-control spray!
Or maybe not.
That doesn't make it a slush fund, nor support the claim of a program percentage of 10%.
Nor does it salvage the false claim in the AP tweet on the story.
Bird Dog: But why? It's a family slush fund, with 10% to charity
False. The Clinton Foundation is subject to annual, independent audits, and their program percentage is 88%, giving it an A-rating. The work of the Foundation has saved millions of lives, often working closely with other foundations, such as the Gates Foundation.
Did you get that from their website?
Maybe you can ask some Haitians
Waiting for a house to be built?
mudbug: Did you get that from their website?
From Charity Watch.
mudbug: Maybe you can ask some Haitians
A lot of money was wasted on Haiti reconstruction. The Clinton Foundation represented only a tiny percentage of what was spent there. Most of the money came from the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. So?
mudbug: Waiting for a house to be built?
Can tell you have not watched Clinton Cash. They lay out very carefully that she completely mismanaged American taxpayer dollars that she was in charge of for Haiti relief and rebuilding. OUR money. Squandered on her friends and paying associates. Don't forget how her brother made out with an impossible-to-get gold permit.
Why are you bothering to defend her? She reeks of corruption.
MissT: Why are you bothering to defend her?
We're not defending her. We're disputing overly broad claims. If you were to claim that money has undue influence on politics, then we would not disagree. But that's not your argument.
A couple of interesting things about Charitywatch.org: The top charities are lefty and when I tried to search a charity, they wanted me to join - no information until I join. Compared to charitynavigator.org, which doesn't require any information from me to give me information about my search. Charitynavigator does not even rate the Clinton Foundation.
B Hammer: A couple of interesting things about Charitywatch.org: The top charities are lefty and when I tried to search a charity, they wanted me to join - no information until I join.
We have searched for many charities on Charity Watch, and never had to log in.
B Hammer: Charitynavigator does not even rate the Clinton Foundation.
Charity Navigator: What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated? It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
CharityNavigator dropped the Clinton Foundation as a rated charity when the Clintons' unorthodox fundraising activities came to light.
Here's their euphemistic statement about removing the Clinton Foundation:
"Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator."
This is much akin to Comey's statement that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute Hillary Clinton. You have to read between the lines as to what is going on.
Jim: You have to read between the lines as to what is going on.
Ah. You read what it feels like they said, not what they actually said.
I am a "reasonable" observer of what has been going on with the Clintons. They should be in prison.
Ruling Class Madness: Bred to RULE, not bred to govern. Big difference.
The Clinton Foundation is an extreme example, and one set up for a specific family, of the "lifestyle" charity
For decades I have observed an abuse of charities that I am not sure has a name. I call it the "lifestyle" charity or non-profit. These are charities more known for the glittering fundraisers than their actual charitable works, and are often typified by having only a tiny percentage of their total budget flowing to projects that actually help anyone except their administrators. These charities seem to be run primarily for the financial maintenance and public image enhancement of their leaders and administrators. Most of their funds flow to the salaries, first-class travel, and lifestyle maintenance of their principals.
To me, such charities are not unlike the monasteries of the early Middle Ages. Such "religious" institutions were often set up to buy favor from the church, but also to house the "spares" of the noble houses. They were places that grew to great wealth, but, and with time by law, those who took orders were out of the dynastic politics. It was a good way not to be killed in the night as a rival to the throne. There were pious works, but also, early on, a problem with drunkenness and orgies by the monks.
Clinton Foundation: program percentage 88%, rated-A by Charity Watch.
Just can't seem to get off of that 88% number? Maybe do some reading. Only 10% went to charitable grants:
MissT: Only 10% went to charitable grants
That's right. As you can see by looking at their tax filings, another 70% went towards direct charitable aid projects. Including subsidiaries, 88% went towards charitable works. This is easily verified by looking at the actual works. For instance, the Foundation provides anti-viral drugs for millions of HIV patients in poor countries.
How any reasonable person, can read thru this (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/) and not find that something fishy is going on, is beyond me. It seems pretty obvious, that if you give big bucks to the Clinton Foundation, you get special access. What a disaster her presidency would be.
B Hammer: How any reasonable person, can read thru this (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/)
What a reasonable person should do is not accept partisan claims without expressing skepticism. Try to debunk such claims before adopting them.
In this case, it looks like the rich and connected have access to well-placed officials in government. Basically, the Crown Prince of an important U.S. ally worked around the system to get a meeting with the Secretary of State. He knew somebody who knew somebody, and pulled a string to get a meeting. This is not illegal, nor even unethical.
You might consider it unfair, but it is how the world works. It's not even clear if there is a regulatory fix that makes it so that Joe Schmoe has the same access to high-level government officials as the Crown Prince of Bahrain. It's not even clear that that would make sense!
You all might consider what is used to pull such a string. If money is used, no matter the number of cutouts between the briber and the bribee, it is most definitely illegal.
arcs: You all might consider what is used to pull such a string.
Connections. For instance, if you once did business with your Congressional representative, then you are more likely to be able to talk to your representative than somebody who doesn't have that relationship. If you contributed to a political campaign, so much the better. All of this is legal.
If the Bill Clinton hit you up for a donation for his HIV program, then that forms a connection. If you also had a high-dollar fundraiser for the Clintons, then that develops the connection. If you are famous or well-connected, you are much more likely to be able to talk to Clinton. And each interaction strengthens the connection. You may even tell your friends that you are a friend of Bill. That's how the world works. Regulation can help reduce some of the possibility of corruption, but can't eliminate it completely.
Sure, you may consider it unfair. You might think that Joe Schmoe should have just as much chance of talking to the Secretary of State as the Crown Prince of an important U.S. ally. But it's not clear what regulation could make this happen. And it's not even clear that this would be desirable!
I don't know whether Boomers are normal when it comes to sex; I just know that I know way too damn much about their sex lives. I tired of seeing commercials on how this little pill or that tube of lube can spice up their sex life. If Millennials, a cohort that rivals Boomers in numbers, are having less sex as some research has indicated, it's probably because they associate sex with their grandparents.
Ref Iran payments:
" 13 individual payments of $99,999,999.99,"
When citizens do that, it's called 'structuring' or 'smurfing'. They go to jail.
A group of MBAs gather at our local bar after trading shuts down, so I asked them who they were backing for president. All said they were leaning toward Trump although they were not certain about some of his policies reported by the MSM. I suggested they watch his speeches recorded by Right Side Broadcasting Network, which follows his campaign stops.
Yesterday afternoon, they were back and now very serious Trump supporters, proclaiming the media had "cherry-picked" their coverage to an extreme bias toward Clinton. The MSM just lost some viewers' respect big time. One of them, the stix-guy, even went through the last dozen polls where Hillary was ahead of Trump and declared them totally slanted to the Democrats with whole age groups left out entirely by some.
They really thought Nigel LaFarge -- "Mr. Brexit" -- appearing with Trump was the whipped cream on the sundae.