I find this a valuable article and comment stream.
The definition of charity is interesting here. Some of our charities pay more in CEO salaries than most of our small businesses. It has become impossible to tell if an entity is truly charitable by the business form it has chosen to take.
Bill Gates has a foundation that is supposed to be a charity. According to Vandana Shiva, it gave $47 million to Monsanto for research. That does not meet my definition of charity.
Some ostensibly for-profits operate as non-profits and vice versa.
I have come to the conclusion that for-profit is the most honest of the forms because profit is defined in the conscience of the individual. I would add co-op to the mix in some states.
Arguing that a non-profit doesn't profit is an argument an honest person would lose.
Corporations are for-profit the minute you pay a salary, in these economic times in particular. Another reason is that if it isn't going to profit, we should call it a why-bother, just-dither-for-tax-re... If you do something people want, you will end up making money, because people like you and want to buy into your scene. You can always have a sliding-scale rate with scholarships so you can diversify your operation in a way that isn't boring.
My next point is that Ron Paul, lonely mouse who is so kindly he somehow has managed to co-exist with vipers for a long time, is now joined in his crusade for honesty by some interesting fellows: Kucinich, Sanders, but most interesting of all, a relatively young and very smart Democrat from Florida, Alan Grayson.
I'm not sure how they are going to try to defame and marginalize Grayson. If they were smart, neither party wouldn try. The Repubs could try to recruit him and the Dems would try to keep him. Grayson has the potential to keep a party in power for a long time if they let him continue to speak for whistleblowers and to champion ordinary people, from which he comes.
If the DemReps just let Ron Paul be the front guy and pick on him the way they always have, concerning transparency in the Fed, it will be the usual bi-partisan attack on Ron Paul, and Grayson can be left on reserve, when the egregiousness of the mess finally requires that some of the operatic stories be told.
If they couldn't shut up a Rock 'n Roll magazine writer from connecting the dots, it's going to get harder and harder to keep the fungal filaments from being noticed by a critical mass of gym rats, couch sitters, and assorted other sub-species of U.S. persons. Tinea pedis is hard to ignore.
Buffett's Betrayal [View article]
The definition of charity is interesting here. Some of our charities pay more in CEO salaries than most of our small businesses. It has become impossible to tell if an entity is truly charitable by the business form it has chosen to take.
Bill Gates has a foundation that is supposed to be a charity. According to Vandana Shiva, it gave $47 million to Monsanto for research. That does not meet my definition of charity.
Some ostensibly for-profits operate as non-profits and vice versa.
I have come to the conclusion that for-profit is the most honest of the forms because profit is defined in the conscience of the individual. I would add co-op to the mix in some states.
Arguing that a non-profit doesn't profit is an argument an honest person would lose.
Corporations are for-profit the minute you pay a salary, in these economic times in particular. Another reason is that if it isn't going to profit, we should call it a why-bother, just-dither-for-tax-re... If you do something people want, you will end up making money, because people like you and want to buy into your scene. You can always have a sliding-scale rate with scholarships so you can diversify your operation in a way that isn't boring.
My next point is that Ron Paul, lonely mouse who is so kindly he somehow has managed to co-exist with vipers for a long time, is now joined in his crusade for honesty by some interesting fellows: Kucinich, Sanders, but most interesting of all, a relatively young and very smart Democrat from Florida, Alan Grayson.
I'm not sure how they are going to try to defame and marginalize Grayson. If they were smart, neither party wouldn try. The Repubs could try to recruit him and the Dems would try to keep him. Grayson has the potential to keep a party in power for a long time if they let him continue to speak for whistleblowers and to champion ordinary people, from which he comes.
If the DemReps just let Ron Paul be the front guy and pick on him the way they always have, concerning transparency in the Fed, it will be the usual bi-partisan attack on Ron Paul, and Grayson can be left on reserve, when the egregiousness of the mess finally requires that some of the operatic stories be told.
If they couldn't shut up a Rock 'n Roll magazine writer from connecting the dots, it's going to get harder and harder to keep the fungal filaments from being noticed by a critical mass of gym rats, couch sitters, and assorted other sub-species of U.S. persons.
Tinea pedis is hard to ignore.