Comments on: Don’t Give Back: Take Back!

By: hp

hp — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:47:12 +0000

He’s, he’s, he’s, a,a,a…….gasp…. POLITICIAN!

By: TS Draegeth

TS Draegeth — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:28:17 +0000

John: perhaps Rich’s explanation did not make it clear to you. Let me help him out a bit.

It is not the words Obama spoke that people are viewing as elitist. Rather, it is the fact that Obama said what he said at a gathering of the rich, whereas he would deliberately not say something like that at a different campaign stop. His deception shows that he is willing to speak a certain kind of truth to one group of people (in this case, a certain kind of truth about people in the Rust Belt), but that when he is faced with the subjects of his observation (said poorer voters in the Rust Belt), he presents himself differently. It is political, and his assessment is probably accurate.

Do you see the perception? When people say that his words were elitist, they are misspeaking. Rather, they probably mean that his choice to only speak those words in a certain place is elitist.

By: Sunil Sharma

Sunil Sharma — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:10:31 +0000

Thanks for the Dostoyevsky quote, Arch! I’ve been trying to remember its exact wording and which book it came from for a book review I’m writing.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:16:16 +0000

….though I fail to see why Obama’s comments were “elitist” or a “problem”, if what he said was true, which IMHO it was, at least to a significant degree.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:06:12 +0000

“intellectuals constant superiority over those less fortunate is a huge problem.”

That is true, too, I must say.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:58:33 +0000

And, by the way, I do believe the 60% overehead rate and higher, for these NGOs. That’s the “normal” overhead rate in the greed-driven private (should I say pirate?) industry after which these NGOs (and their salary structure) are modeled. And i’ve seen much higher overhead rates for some charities (80%, even 90%+ for some vet charities — the more they tug at your heart, the more slimy and sleazy and shameless they are). In other words, most resources go toward reinforcing dead wood, not producing. that is the result of the predatory system of greed and tax policies favoring such waste and greed and wealth concentration at the top.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:50:21 +0000

“If what I am doing is not worth six figures then no charity professional at any level from top to bottom should be making that much money. They can live like a normal human not a prince or king.”

Exactly, but I would add all those executives in the private industry, too, running their respective companies into the ground, as well as the jobs, pensions, and the whole economy, too, only to be rewarded with 8 or 9 figure salaries by their buddies on the boards. None of them are doing anything more special or important or more complicated than the rest of us doing responsible work with some significant level of consequence, they just hype it that way. And skim off the top what the millions have paid, because they’re on top and they can do it and noone dare say anything.

The whole system of everything is greed driven and corrupt to the core. It’s grab what you can, steal, steal, steal, pad your resume, do whatever it takes, and then you’re a “winner”.

With “winners” like these to look up to, that’s how we became a nation of losers.

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:26:55 +0000

“Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a child’s game, with children’s songs, choruses and innocent dances.”

Dostoyevsky

from “The Grand Inquisitor”

By: evie

evie — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:05:54 +0000

For some it’s more profitable to give a man a new pair of shoes than change the system that keeps him barefoot.

By: cjm

cjm — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:31:26 +0000

Rich
Is there too much overhead? Prove it you say? Look at the salaries of the charity heads. The head of the Red Cross or United Way or virtually any other charity is making mid six figures. If they made a salary twice what I make it would still be a reduction of several times. And no they are not worth that. I am an experienced, educated professional with a significant level of responsibility in private industry. If what I am doing is not worth six figures then no charity professional at any level from top to bottom should be making that much money. They can live like a normal human not a prince or king. And no I will not donate till that garbage changes.

By: Mickey Z.

Mickey Z. — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:55:45 +0000

Thanks for the mention, Reza. I’m with you, re: “giving back.” Charity is a textbook capitalist response to inequality. Rather than addressing the predictable, correctable conditions that created such dire need, we instead buy guilt relief with our donations and let the experts (sic) figure out how to solve (sic) the problem.

By: sk

sk — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:09:53 +0000

Paul Theroux has a nice phrase for NGO do-gooders in the Third World: agents of virtue. Here's an excerpt from Dark Star Safari: Overland from Cairo to Capetown:

The whites, teachers, diplomats, and agents of virtue I met at dinner parties had pretty much the same things on their minds as their counterparts had in the 1960s. They discussed relief projects and scholarships and agricultural schemes, refugee camps, emergency food programs, technical assistance. They were newcomers. They did not realize that for forty years people had been saying the same things, and the result after four decades was a lower standard of living, a higher rate of illiteracy, overpopulation, and much more disease.

A few more passages from the same book.

By: Rich Griffin

Rich Griffin — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:29:55 +0000

I’m glad that American Idol did this actually. It reached many millions of americans with the very worthwhile idea of caring about the poor – all of the intellectual posturing in the world is not going to reach the millions this show did. Is it too little?? Yes. But again: culture matters! This intellectual assault constantly aimed at what they perceive to be “low brow” culture is not helpful!! I would much rather people be reached somewhere than nowhere with this particular message!

Can you prove that the overhead is really high? I can’t prove that it isn’t – I can only say that they have said that it isn’t all that high. (all charities have SOME overhead, we all know that much).

Again, it’s the same issue: intellectuals don’t get it. Obama’s choice of VENUE for his elitist comments was a larger problem than what he said; intellectuals constant superiority over those less fortunate is a huge problem.