Caveat Emptor applies to charitable giving too

November 17, 2013

Donate with caution!

Most of us know mankind often commits fraud and outright theft against fellow humans.

It also happens within charitable and non-profit organizations.

Several weeks ago, Harry Smith on NBC, reported a very negative story about Goodwill Industries. I suspect most of us have shopped at or donated money or goods to Goodwill. They are famous for hiring the handicapped as a major part of their mission in order to provide income and the dignity of work for many otherwise unemployable humans. On the surface it all sounds wonderfully benevolent and admirable. That is until, as Smith pointed out, some of the handicapped and disabled who work there make as little as 22 cents an hour! You read correctly....22 cents an hour! That comes out to a less than paltry $9 per week.

According to Smith, Goodwill workers repetitive activities are timed by observers and they are paid what they are then judged to be worth. No matter how it is explained, this seems more deserving of being called slave labor than just low pay. To make it even worse, Smith went on to report that one senior Goodwill executive was paid more than a million dollars a year, and many others were paid over a half million dollars. How can this be rationally explained, or even possible? I'm guessing these executives are timing each others productivity!

It all goes back to an obscure law signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1938 which shelters some employers from having to pay even minimum wages as an inducement for them to employ disabled or handicapped workers.

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression slavery had been abolished. How can those at the top of Goodwill look themselves in a mirror and not be totally embarrassed?

I encountered another despicable example of charitable failure a few years ago while playing golf at a resort in Florida. My foursome came to the tee of a par three hole where we were greeted by a very attractive lady who had a table with a sign indicating she was representing the American Diabetes Association. She said she was accepting donations of $5 in return for a chance to win a sleeve of golf balls if the golfer could hit a tee shot onto the green. I asked her how much of the $5 went to the charity. She said she didn't know. I asked how much of each donation she kept. Without a hint of embarrassment she replied, half. So, I went on, then half goes to the charity? She replied that she passed on the remaining money to the person who coordinated the event, and who had workers at every golf course in the area on most busy days, and he kept part of it for his work. It didn't take much imagination to understand that this was mainly a money making scheme for the organizers of these events.

I have seen many news stories over the years with the same theme. For example, organizations hire phone solicitors to call homes and request donations. These folks are very well trained and always begin a request for money by describing a person or group most of us will have empathy toward. After all, who can turn their back on requests to support burned children, veterans, disabled veterans, firefighters, or police. The problem is that many if not most of these operations net far more money for the fundraisers than the final beneficiary they claim to be representing. Money finally received by many charities who fund-raise this way will be a fraction of the amount collected.

I will also never donate money to any quasi political group claiming benevolent objectives for our nation. I speak specifically of organizations such as AmericansElect and their ilk. I wrote an article warning about them in late 2011. Careful investigation had shown this particular organization was started by a hedge fund manager. The moment I saw hedge fund manager connected to a supposedly benevolent political non-profit--I was stopped in my tracks. Information on their website showed a small group of individuals, including the leader, had provided several million dollars in seed money to start the organization. However, in the small print, it said these initial contributions were promised to be returned once sufficient funds were raised. I may not be the brightest bulb, but even I can see giant red flags when they're waving in my face!

Guess what subsequently happened? Just before the election in 2012 AmericansElect folded like a tent. Those who sent in donations were left to wonder what happened to the additional millions of dollars raised above the returned seed money?

From now on when someone I do not personally know approaches me to request a donation for any cause...the answer will be no. I will decide to whom I will make donations...after checking out the charity to ensure most of the money will actually reach named recipients. My current answer to phone requests is a firm but polite, "I do not respond to phone solicitations!"

We all know Caveat emptor applies to any purchase decision we make. Sadly, it applies to charitable giving too. Don't stop giving, but do stop giving carelessly!

Mike

American's not trained for survival

November 10, 2013

Most Americans not trained for survival

Bill Howard's article in the Times-News on June 8 should serve as a reminder most citizens of civilized nations are woefully unequipped to provide their own food and shelter in the event of a major disaster of almost any type.

He pointed out, as humans developed greater specialized individual skills in order to become able to earn a living in a capitalistic society, we lost the broader general survival skills of earlier generations. In our own history all the way up to the early 20th century, most people had multiple skills they were able to use to help themselves survive. Families knew how to hunt, gather, and grow their own food, prepare and store foods for consumption, make clothes, even treat minor illnesses. It's clear these skills helped many of the great depression era generation survive in spite of little money to buy life's necessities.

It seems pretty clear most of our current generation severely lack these basic survival skills. Most of us do not know how to hunt, dress, store, or prepare any game foods. Most of us don't really know how to raise our own crops.

You may have seen some of the reality TV shows based on individuals preparing to survive any type of disaster. Most of us likely laugh at the notion of these so-called "preppers" spending time and money to be prepared for a natural or man-made disaster...as if we really can't imagine it happening to us or our part of the world.

Howard describes those who are sincerely interested in making sure they are properly equipped to survive as being survivalists...not "preppers".

In America, as in most modern developed nations, the distribution system used to supply most items needed for human survival has become so efficient, almost every community literally has only a few days worth of food/water available. This means any disruption of the supply chain will result in almost immediate shortages of needed items. Panic buying then ensues, making shortages even worse.

Take a long serious look in a mirror and ask yourself...what will you do if some sort of disaster happened, and the food/water supply runs out within a few days? Do you have enough food...and more important...water to last your family for a few weeks? After the initial survival period passes, do you know how to gather food and water? Probably as important, if you did have the foresight to plan for such an event, do you also have the means to protect your supplies from others who were less inclined to prepare?

I have been watching a Netflix series about real survivalists in rural Alaska. It seems clear, even most of these folks would also struggle to survive because so much of their living requirements are brought in by bush pilots. However, it's obvious from watching them, they have a much better chance than most urban dwellers.

I'm thinking my first option should be to adopt an Alaskan family who would be willing to move south for better weather. We can provide a place for them to live in exchange for their skills to keep us fed and protected from the elements.

In large urban centers where the majority of our citizens live, food shortages will produce almost immediate rioting and bands of normally honest folks will band together to go out and take food away from weaker groups who have no way to protect themselves. As a local young local once told me...when my kids are hungry and I have no food to give them...I will have to go take it from those who have it. For those who have repeatedly asked why a civilian should ever consider owning a semi-automatic weapon...this may be as good a reason as any.

It certainly makes one wonder about what we should be doing? Should we just ignore the possibilities and accept our likely fate? Should we begin to learn survival skills from experts? Should we begin to store extra food and water? Should we begin to form local support groups pledged to help each other survive?

If I had a young family today and wanted to find a way to help us be better prepared for survival I think I would strongly consider searching for a survival training program to take my family through on our next family vacation.

It certainly makes sense to set up a supply of canned and dried foodstuffs...and even more importantly...drinking water. Humans can live much longer without food than water.

Picture you and your family waking up tomorrow in a world in which the basic necessities you have always depended on are no longer readily available. It's a terrifying thought!

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

PS I considered moving to Alaska, except I realized I would remain unable to find/kill/grow/prepare food--and I'd also be colder than you know what.November 10, 2013

Most Americans not trained for survival

Bill Howard's article in the Times-News on June 8 should serve as a reminder most citizens of civilized nations are woefully unequipped to provide their own food and shelter in the event of a major disaster of almost any type.

He pointed out, as humans developed greater specialized individual skills in order to become able to earn a living in a capitalistic society, we lost the broader general survival skills of earlier generations. In our own history all the way up to the early 20th century, most people had multiple skills they were able to use to help themselves survive. Families knew how to hunt, gather, and grow their own food, prepare and store foods for consumption, make clothes, even treat minor illnesses. It's clear these skills helped many of the great depression era generation survive in spite of little money to buy life's necessities.

It seems pretty clear most of our current generation severely lack these basic survival skills. Most of us do not know how to hunt, dress, store, or prepare any game foods. Most of us don't really know how to raise our own crops.

You may have seen some of the reality TV shows based on individuals preparing to survive any type of disaster. Most of us likely laugh at the notion of these so-called "preppers" spending time and money to be prepared for a natural or man-made disaster...as if we really can't imagine it happening to us or our part of the world.

Howard describes those who are sincerely interested in making sure they are properly equipped to survive as being survivalists...not "preppers".

In America, as in most modern developed nations, the distribution system used to supply most items needed for human survival has become so efficient, almost every community literally has only a few days worth of food/water available. This means any disruption of the supply chain will result in almost immediate shortages of needed items. Panic buying then ensues, making shortages even worse.

Take a long serious look in a mirror and ask yourself...what will you do if some sort of disaster happened, and the food/water supply runs out within a few days? Do you have enough food...and more important...water to last your family for a few weeks? After the initial survival period passes, do you know how to gather food and water? Probably as important, if you did have the foresight to plan for such an event, do you also have the means to protect your supplies from others who were less inclined to prepare?

I have been watching a Netflix series about real survivalists in rural Alaska. It seems clear, even most of these folks would also struggle to survive because so much of their living requirements are brought in by bush pilots. However, it's obvious from watching them, they have a much better chance than most urban dwellers.

I'm thinking my first option should be to adopt an Alaskan family who would be willing to move south for better weather. We can provide a place for them to live in exchange for their skills to keep us fed and protected from the elements.

In large urban centers where the majority of our citizens live, food shortages will produce almost immediate rioting and bands of normally honest folks will band together to go out and take food away from weaker groups who have no way to protect themselves. As a local young local once told me...when my kids are hungry and I have no food to give them...I will have to go take it from those who have it. For those who have repeatedly asked why a civilian should ever consider owning a semi-automatic weapon...this may be as good a reason as any.

It certainly makes one wonder about what we should be doing? Should we just ignore the possibilities and accept our likely fate? Should we begin to learn survival skills from experts? Should we begin to store extra food and water? Should we begin to form local support groups pledged to help each other survive?

If I had a young family today and wanted to find a way to help us be better prepared for survival I think I would strongly consider searching for a survival training program to take my family through on our next family vacation.

It certainly makes sense to set up a supply of canned and dried foodstuffs...and even more importantly...drinking water. Humans can live much longer without food than water.

Picture you and your family waking up tomorrow in a world in which the basic necessities you have always depended on are no longer readily available. It's a terrifying thought!

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

PS I considered moving to Alaska, except I realized I would remain unable to find/kill/grow/prepare food--and I'd also be colder than you know what.

Americas's moderates can have a powerful voice

November 3, 2013

America's moderates can have a powerful voice

As a result of gerrymandering, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, nearly 70 percent are controlled by one political party. Opposing party voters end up knowing their candidates can never win unless the district is someday re-gerrymandered.

We saw this play out in our own congressional district in 2010 when Jeff Miller ran unsuccessfully against incumbent Heath Shuler for the District 11 seat. Jeff had almost no chance of winning because our gerrymandered district had an overwhelming number of Democratic voters.

Then the tables turned. The GOP won control of the N.C. Legislature for the first time in a century at the end of 2010, and it took immediate action to gerrymander every district possible in its favor. Shuler, knowing he had no chance of being re-elected, stepped aside, and Mark Meadows won a hard-fought primary race to become our congressman.

Perhaps one of the reasons we are seeing such abysmal voter participation rates is because voters from the secondary party in any gerrymandered district know they have almost no voice in determining who will be elected to represent them in Congress.

To make matters worse, in a majority of these gerrymandered districts, party extremists control who gets nominated — and remember, anyone nominated from one of these districts is nearly guaranteed to win.

Because of gerrymandering, the majority of elected congressional representatives end up coming from districts controlled by either ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative extremists. They are left unable to compromise, and the frozen political debate in D.C. results.

Interestingly, while this partisan debate is happening, the majority of voters define themselves as middle-of-the-road moderate-centrists. However, they have almost no say in the nominating process for their party since they are rarely well organized, and so usually support the candidate chosen by their party's extremists.

I'm going to share an idea that would easily allow moderates to not only be heard but to actually kill the power of the extremists.

Remember, in the 300 or so gerrymandered districts, winning the primary of the party in power is the key to getting elected. Did you know that if you are registered as an independent, you can vote in either party's primary?

Today more than a quarter of American voters are registered as independent, and the number is growing steadily — mostly because so many people simply can't fully support either party.

Here's the simple strategy to help make real change in American politics:

If you are a moderate-centrist who is a member of the controlling party for your district, don't just go along with the crowd. Work to help nominate the most moderate candidate you can find. You would be even more effective by also registering as an independent to signal to party leaders that you are unhappy with them.

If you are registered as a member of the minority party in your district, change your registration to independent. Next — and here's a huge key to making change — vote in the opposing party's primary elections for the most moderate candidate.

Obviously, if you are already registered as an independent, make sure you vote to nominate the most moderate candidate for the party in power. If you are a moderate-centrist but not currently registered, please register as an independent and support moderate candidates of the party in power during primary elections.

Imagine the power that could be unleashed if the majority of moderate-centrist independent voters followed this strategy.

Imagine how it could change the behavior of current incumbents as they face the new challenge of speaking to this new powerful constituency that is larger than the extremist minority, whose directions they have been following.

Imagine the types of candidates who will surface in an environment in which their basic decency and desire to serve all of their constituents will be highly valued.

If this strategy were followed, when the next Republican primary rolls around for District 11 and all moderate voters are deciding on a candidate to support, how likely is it that the current tea party poster boy would be re-nominated?

It seems clear that the majority of moderate-centrists are very frustrated at the frozen partisan politics playing out in Washington. This partisan politics is being led by each party's extremist minority. This is moderate Americans' chance to be heard in ways that can actually force positive behavioral change in those we elect to represent our best interests.

Wouldn't it be refreshing and uplifting to hear candidates say they intend to represent the best interests of their moderate constituents instead of either the ultra-liberals or the ultra-conservatives? Wouldn't it be even better if they were elected, and their walk matched their talk?

It's up to each of us to take the first step by registering as independents, and then follow that up by voting in the primary for the most moderate candidate of the party in power during the primary election. This is action we can and must take if we are to have any chance of taking back control of our nation from the opposing extremists in both parties.

We've all seen how stubborn and unyielding the extremists can be. They won't back down willingly. So let us moderates join together and push them out of the way!

Mike Tower