It Puzzles Me.

        So, as I was leafing through the “lifestyle” section of the local paper looking for my daily Sudoku, Jumble, and the Saturday Stumper (usually a really nasty crossword puzzle), my eye caught a column, apparently from beyond the grave, with the author listed as Billy Graham.

        I have long believed that the only dead person whose work remains good enough to reprint in the newspaper is the late Charles Shultz.  Peanuts typically carried far more rational and moral messages than anything the mercenary Mr. Graham ever spewed. (Warning! That was an opinion).

        Today's retread was a column entitled “The Only Road to Heaven goes Through Jesus.”  Processing that statement is revelatory when one attempts to process the tremendously un-Christian attitudes of many of the current crop of Evangelicals who would inflict their ethos and dogmatic beliefs on the entire body politic. It should be noted that this includes a large number of beliefs which are not derived from any philosophy attributed to Jesus.    

        The clear implication begins with the assurance that only Christians (and by implication that only those who are true fundamentalists will have any continued existence in any sense after death. Considering the Pat Robertsons, Rick Santorums, Ann Coulters, and Ted Cruzes, that might well be a plus. It also consigns all the rest of the world’s devout worshippers to someplace else. 

       In Graham World, the list of those not worthy of heaven would include, Einstein, The Dalai Lama, Socrates, Pat Tillman, Katherine Hepburn, Thomas Jefferson, and (probably for the best), Mark Twain. It’s a real shame, too, because I’d pay well to see Dylan Roof, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gayce, Christians all, explain their murderous actions to Elie Wiesel and Mohandas Gandhi, who as a Jew and a Hindu, don’t have a chance of eternal life. Really sounds childishly ridiculous in that context doesn’t it?   

Riposte

This is a response to an individual who rabidly defended Brett Kavanaugh, insisting, with no actual knowledge, that he was innocent  of any sexual abuse of anyone ever, and that Dr Ford, who testified to contrary the had probably had something happen to her, but it wasn't "him."  Along the way she referred to me as a zealot for  disagreeing with her. She also, in true conspiracy theory style, flatly stated that Democrats were using  Dr Ford, a PhD, because they hated anything Trump ( and lets face it Kavanaugh is Trump's creature here. Of course she started with "You don't know me." 

Dear XXXXXXXXXX,

You are absolutely correct, sort of. While I don’t “know you” personally, I certainly do know you by your own words, which were either written in error or do reveal your attitudes toward to the discussion in point. XXXXX can confirm, and my writing indicates, that I'm not a "zealot." What I am is a fact based writer.  Nowhere did I, as you do throughout, assert opinion as fact. I do however, in your writing, see the continued use of "believe" in place of "know." I see an insistence of blaming/shaming persons who could well have remained silent and who gain absolutely nothing and stand to lose much, especially personal privacy for the rest of their lives, by coming forward.

Accusing the "Democrats" implies that an accomplished woman, a PhD, is so naive that she let herself be used (your words not mine), but to what end? The ruination of her life? You state that you believe that she had a “bad experience” but is so damaged that she doesn't know who the perpetrator was. Really? Kavanaugh has much to gain by lying and relatively little to lose. He will remain on the federal bench for life or retirement, regardless.

I cannot begin to fathom the motivation of those, especially women who blindly adhere to the Trump illusion. Certainly, any rational female, confronted with uncontroverted proof that their candidate slept with at least one woman, and that a porn star, while his wife was pregnant, might be forgiven for reconsidering their support of said serial adulterer. Of course, if you believe that Trump's attorney paid off the woman just out of generosity...! It's unfathomable that so much bad behavior doesn't seem to register with the real zealots of the far right.

When Trump said during the campaign, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," I honestly believed any intelligent Republican would pause to reconsider their blind allegiance. I was obviously looking through the wrong lens.

I mourn the death of the Eisenhower Republican party. I wonder at the reasons that Trump supporters maintain their slavish devotion, when I look at what he has done. Then, revisiting transference, I'm forced to believe, based on actions and attitudes that they support Trump initiatives because they feel and believe as he does. What are those apparent "core beliefs"? I say apparent since I find it hard to actually find any discernable core values in Trump world, but such as there are read as follows:

Immigrants are bad unless US businesses "need them" ("Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?")

Most women are liars, and powerful men, all moral (except Democrats) are under siege.

Although discredited by essentially every credible economist in the country, tariffs and trade wars are good.

The good will of the rest of the world is meaningless

When wealthy American businesses move to manufacture off-shore to maximize profits with accompanying US job losses, that’s somehow the Democrats fault. As a collateral to this, it is interesting that clothing such as Trump and his daughter manufacture overseas and sell in the US is not part of Trump's tariff gambit. 

Responsible mainstream media are now “left wing” if they disagree with anything Trump wants

Coal is “clean, beautiful coal” instead of one of the leading carcinogenic pollutants in the atmosphere

The environment is relatively unimportant and the EPA (created by the Nixon administration!) is just an annoyance to corporate polluters

Black people are just naturally lazy (“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

Veterans don’t really deserve respect ("[John McCain is] not a war hero. He's a war hero - he's a war hero 'cause he was captured. I Like people that weren't captured, OK, I hate to tell you."

Incredibly and falsely inflated ego ("Sorry losers and haters, but my IQ is one of the highest - and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault." (Not if his fifth- grade writing is any indication. He never even made Dean’s List in college.)

"Show me someone with no ego and I'll show you a big loser." He must mean losers like Einstein, Hawking, Jonas Salk, Rosa Parks…losers like those people.

And, this lover of women on breastfeeding mothers: “You’re disgusting”

Finally, the “Trump economy?” The federal deficit, which Republicans screamed about when Obama was trying to dig out of the worst economic collapse since the great depression, will be more than 5% of GDP this year. This is a level never previously seen when unemployment was under 10%. Why is this happening? Good question, and here’s the incontrovertible answer. After constantly referring to “Tax and Spend liberals” as a campaign slogan, The Trump Administration’s budget reduced taxes (not so much on “us,” but a lot on the “one-percenters”) while greatly increasing spending. You've got more spending. You've got less revenue. And the deficit is just getting bigger and bigger, to the point where it will be at least a trillion dollars every year during the Trump administration and beyond." Some economist, huh?

So, in summary, one is almost forced to conclude that if you are a Trump supporter, these attitudes are ones you also embrace. If so, then I am truly sorry for you. If not, then maybe some introspection is in order. Anyone who points out these factual positions and asks, “Why?,” isn’t a Zealot, but a realist. The Zealot never asks why!

Implied Authority

This a response, too long for Facebook, to a reply to a picture I recently posted showing the shaming of women by those of the far right, specifically in response to assertions of sexual abuse by men. There can be little doubt that those of the Conservative ilk who race to pile on such complainants would sing an entirely different tune if it were their daughter. (Pardon me, I slipped into logic there for an instant.) Anyway, the person in question, at least by implication, seems to justify these opinions and dispersions as Biblical in nature, as many of the Far Rightists do. More disturbing (or it certainly ought to be) is her allegation that non believers are ..... never mind here she is in her own words, responding, not to me but to another response to the post which agreed with the sentiment displayed by the picture.  

       "Yes, the Bible is the catalyst for the views of most of us, others rely just on their common sense. Yes, women are subservient to men. Men are told to love their wife, but women are never told outright to love their husband. Amazingly, though, women love their kind husbands.
No, slavery is not okay in the Bible. The point is that if the Bible figure is a slave, then he is to conduct himself with love toward others, etc., in spite of the captivity.
We behave in order to please God. None of us would ask for your approval.
Your next comments are unclear as to context as well as meaning.
If you read the Bible, you are reading other people's mail. You are not expected to understand it, as it was not written for outsiders."  Yep, that's what she said! What follows is my response, once I stopped laughing.        

   

XXXX, this may well be the most well phrased and yet nonsensical defense of the deprecation of women I've ever read. I must assume from your post that you are a Christian, which means that nothing related to how we treat others (some of which you include in your apologia) which drives from the Old Testament is valid anyway, since your boss described a “New Covenant”, consistent with his teachings and personal behavior as described in such of the synoptic gospels as we have traditionally been “allowed “ to read.

The secondary status of women which evolved in early Christianity, and continues to a great extent in Evangelical settings, doesn’t stem from Jesus in any sense, but rather generally reflects the personal opinion of Paul; and even more so, the early Bishops who were, by the third century, creating a hierarchy (translates as "positions of authority and power") for themselves.

 As non-royalty, the only other option for a power-driven person in the Roman Empire was religion. This continued even into medieval Europe and later, where, typically, the eldest son inherited land and title and the second son entered the Priesthood. As recently as 2011, Bishops are still automatically granted seats in the House of Lords in the UK. There is only just very recently a proviso that one of the minor Bishops seats may be filled by a woman. Even a Methodist and a Chief Rabbi, (men only!) have been so seated. All this was cemented by the early systematic reduction of women to relatively inconsequential positions in the Church. Even those women who were sainted and were reverenced, had essentially no temporal authority over males.

Your claim that someone is "reading someone else's mail" would seem to indicate that you believe that the Bible was written, not for the world, but for select individuals (like you), and definitely not for anyone who can think critically. That’s just sad. It also implies than no one who is not already a believer could read the Bible and become one.  And finally, understand that the Bible you read isn't all the writings from the period which relate to Jesus.

The Old Testament, of course, was not written contemporaneously, but as much as a thousand years after many of the described "events," so it is much less "history " than fable. Heck, even Homer was writing of events (The Trojan War) at a time much closer (within about 400 years) to the alleged events.

Likewise, the synoptic gospels were not written by the apostles who accompanied Jesus, since almost all of them (like Peter) were semi- literate. It is a sure bet that Peter never wrote in Greek, if at all. Additionally, some of the most powerful scenes in them (the synoptics) cannot possibly be even first-hand accounts (Jesus conversation in the wilderness with Satan, for which there is no witness, yet there is verbatim dialogue), or he scene in the garden where even with all the Apostles asleep, we again have verbatim dialogue between Jesus and God? Really? and who wrote that down?

 Paul, however, raised in a well to do family in a formerly Greek, later Roman city (Tarsus), schooled there and later, Jerusalem, was well educated, and literate in Greek and used that skill to create the image of Jesus as he wanted the world to see it, yet he never met the man either (don’t give me that “Road to Damascus” bunk). 

So, in summary, claiming to "know" what Jesus said, or even meant, was wishful thinking. Even if we assume that what is attributed to Jesus is what he actually taught, it was soon distorted into a different focus, from a personal religion to a “corporate” one. Every nation state (all of Europe) which made Christianity the state religion also derogated and relegated women to secondary status, while (exclusively male) Church primates quickly became advisors to kings.

The first step was to make the scriptures unavailable to the common person, who, generally illiterate, was reliant upon the newly empowered, literate, clergy to read it and interpret it for them. This would result in the Catholic Church continuing the Mass in Latin, understood by essentially no one not of the elite from, at the latest, the 6^th century into the late 20^th century (1965), when the first vernacular Mass was celebrated in Ireland.

By the late 200’s AD, most of the “traditional” Gospels which supported the new theme of a male dominated clergy and a secondary status for women, were accepted as such. Reasons for this are several and easily understood. First, converting Jews and Greeks, both of whose cultures subordinated women by religious credo, custom and tradition, was much easier if Christianity followed suit. Secondly and just as important was the opportunity for men, in societies already male dominated, to gain power without being born to it. This became even more obvious after Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople. Now, endorsed by the Emperor, Christianity’s early power brokers had the highest authority to form the Bible as they desired, regardless of those “other" books, which tell a slightly different story.  

The "gospels” (Mary Magdalene, Timothy, Peter, Levi and around 30 other scriptural writings which didn't "make it" were rejected by an early Church council. What do they have in common? All differ from the “accepted” version as early church power brokers wanted it. More significant for the purposes of this discussion, several show the importance and equal status of Mary Magdalene as an apostle. (Here is a snippet of the “Gospel of Mary:” “Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.  Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.”  Why might Peter have acted as he did? Perhaps the “non-included’ Gospel of Philip is instructional. Here’s a verse or two: “And the companion of the [savior] was Mary Magdalene. He loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples… [damaged text]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness." Apparently, in Jesus case, he liked what he saw!

So, feel free to rationalize why you accept or condone the Far Right’s relegation of women and their right to control of their own bodies to the trash heap of religious dogma, but don’t claim it’s because the Jesus you claim to worship wanted it that way.

Pretty Well Sums It Up!

The picture below is borrowed from a website called the Far Corner Cafe. I highly recommend you give them a look every day, as I do

  http://farcornercafe.blogspot.com/

This expresses the Far Right's position on women's rights and the Me Too movement as well as anything I've ever seen. In their eyes every man is a helpless victim of slander and every woman is predatory. Just ask Roy Moore (or Mr. Trump). Look at it. Evaluate it. If  what it expresses doesn't t bother you, drink a shot of Chlorox. Repeat as necessary.

The Far Right is so confused on so many issues that I’ve concluded that it is their RELIGION that is the catalyst for their views — their bible tells women to be subservient to men, and also tells them that slavery is OK. Mix in some basic “golden rule” of JC and they have no idea whatsoever how to behave. Along come Southern Ministers (of one of 20,000 Protestant variations) who turn the slavery-OK-in-Bible into their right to minimize black people and you have the American Far Right of 2018. Trump adds HIS rich man variant right to grab pussy (and every other form of misogyny) and extends black slavery to brown criminality. Ain’t we exceptional??
(male respondent)

Art should speak to you, move you. Well, this piece certainly SHOUTS at me, moves me, upsets me as a woman who can relate. Sadly, I don't believe either Mr. Moore or Trump would ever understand the image or even notice the comments. Thanks for sharing,
(female respondent)

 Let us talk about RELIGION and the disgusting influence on the conservative "right" and this current gang of thugs and criminals the rubes and Russia has put into power: "Religions usually are androcentric
Some leadership roles still restricted to males
In many religions, only men are ordained
Religious traditions, law and cultural factors treat women differently than men
Religion provides the structure on how women should live their day-to-day lives
God is traditionally portrayed as a masculine figure
Sex segregation is still present
Stress on modesty is usually focused on women
Religious texts and practices are patriarchal
Protocols are more strictly applied to women
Women are more regulated than men
Women are not part of the decision-making machinery
Proponents indicate that although women have overcome barriers in various spheres, religion seems to be the hardest nut to crack."
(male respondent)

Lifes Lessons Learned

      Sometimes while reading Social media posts, I am reminded of something Mark Twain once said; and, truth told, on some days, many things he said. The observation in question goes something like this: “When I was twelve, I thought my father the stupidest man I’d ever met. By the time I had reached twenty- one, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned!”

       On this occasion there is no one particular instance in mind, but over twenty years of teaching high school and parenting and yes, grandparenting, instances have reminded me of Twain’s wisdom. It isn’t uncommon to see earnest young people decry the ignorance or (insert favorite pejorative descriptor here) of “older people” when waxing enthusiastic or offended about a particular issue. It seems to go along with the territory on the way to maturity.

        I am often tempted to point out to these delightfully naïve (sometimes) youngsters two salient facts:

Fact the first: “No one is born with the wisdom which comes from experience and maturity. You can’t buy it, or even rent it for a bit. You have to slog through the swamp that life can sometimes be.  You have to live through the process, and even then, there are adults to whom it seems never to have “stuck.”  (perhaps not enough mud, too much riding on someone else’s back?)  I would offer recent tweets by POTUS as evidence of the latter.   

       Fact the second: No one has ever been born and gone directly to age thirty. No one. Ever. This physical fact means that every adult has been an infant, child, and teen; all of ‘em - even your parents and grandparents. It doesn’t mean they’re always right, but it does mean, that a whiny, “You can’t understand” is probably incorrect. What their response may well mean is “Yes, I can, and I caution you or reject the idea because I know from experience that it’s fraught with peril.”
 In the words of the late Brian Dennehy, “At some point, life will sink its fangs in the back of your neck and shake the s--- out of you.”

To reiterate, this is not based on any recent episode in my life, rather just on a long time here on the water planet.   

Treason, Really?

Ok, if you read this and you're a Trump supporter, it's time to try thinking - just a little. It won't hurt much, I promise.

        The guy you blindly follow, in the wake of the Op-Ed which recently ran in the Times and was attributed to an "anonymous administration source" erupted, predictably, with the usual shit- storm of Tweets, complete with ALL CAPS and meaningless superlatives. What was truly troubling though, in addition to the rambling, partial sentence, fragmented thoughts to which, sadly, we’ve become accustomed, was his use of the word "Treason" to describe what is simply criticism.

        Understand this point. This man sees any criticism of his actions as treason. While this may not trouble many Trumpists, many, perhaps most, of whom aren't really all that familiar with our governing document, (you know that “Constitution" thingy?) it should. The word “Treason is defined as it is (look it up, US Constitution, Article Three, Section Three) to specifically apply only to acts against the nation, and then in time of war. Trump has conflated this, in his typical five-year-old bully who has never been told "no" style, to also mean disloyalty to him personally.

        The reason the framers, conservatives as they were, wrote the document to define Treason as they did, was that another puerile tyrant (George III of England (who had an excuse, he wasn't sane most days) saw himself in the same vein as had his "divine right" predecessors and peers throughout Europe. That was, as Louis XIV of France would so eloquently put it, "L'Etat...c'est moi!" or in English, for the non-liberal arts folks, "I AM the state." (literally, “The state…it is I”) The doctrine that kings and queens had a God-given right to rule and that rebellion against them was a sin was common through the seventeenth century and was urged by such kings as the aforementioned Louis XIV.  

       This extended "treason" to cover basically anything the King didn't like. It was sometimes even conflated as even more heinous, since the King is divinely chosen by the great Sky magus, then any untoward utterance (act not required) was also tantamount to heresy. As a matter of fact, "dissing" the King was "High Treason. This latest tirade would seem to indicate that Donald Trump may see himself through that same lens. This almost makes Richard Nixon, a man who also saw personal loyalty, no matter how flawed his actions, as his God given just dues, seem relatively well adjusted by comparison.

        It is, unfortunate that so many of our countrymen are abysmally ignorant of things such as this, a foundation stone of our democratic representative republic, yet so expert on the inner thoughts of those same men regarding guns. Trump is squarely in this camp, and in fact, if Bob Woodward’s recent book, “Fear,” is anywhere close to his usual multiple Pulitzer laureate standard (bet on it), then Trump may be even farther off the rails than most of us fear.    

        Irrespective of that, the President isn't the state, and treason can't be "committed" against him. What next, Melania opining that we should simply shut up and eat the cake?

Charity Scams

         I just got a call from the “United Police Officers’ Association”. Actually, it was a telephone solicitor. Sounds impressive, though, huh? Since this was an auto-dial message, I simply hung up, rather than do what I will sometimes do if I have the time and there’s a real person on the other end. I have two strategies I really like. The first is to ask the caller to, “Please, wait a moment, since I’m at my computer, while I look up your charity on the Charity Navigator website." This last word is usually followed by the imaginary sound of crickets, since the line is now dead.

        The second and one I take really personally is to interrupt the person and explain that I am a retired public-school teacher and then ask them, “When was the last time a retired teacher called you asking for contributions?” Cue the crickets.

        In truth, no one in any public service job area should be in need of charity for medical expenses, on or off the job, since essentially all such departments provide Health insurance and Workman’s comp. insurance (required by law.)   If such a situation exists, it is a pathetic reflection on any organization involved. State for state, non-degreed police and firefighters almost universally retire earlier and with far better benefits that public-school teachers with master’s degrees. How dare they call asking for handouts?

        Of course, what is really going on with these and, disappointingly, a lot of other Law Enforcement and/or military related faux charities is that they are offered something for nothing. Companies who specialize in phone solicitation for hire get to use the official sounding name when calling and remit in many cases less than 15% of donated funds to the organization named. Of course, the organization’s share is simply the use of their name. It’s free money, except for those duped into contributing. Charity Navigator, Charity Watchdog  and other similar organizations regularly evaluate, and rate charities based on a well-defined set of fiscal guidelines. I heartily recommend one visit one such site before contributing. You’ll find that there are many legitimate service organizations (like St Jude’s) for example doing good work with contributed funds, but you might be surprised at what some others do. 

        

            To get you started toward a more critical approach to giving here’s a list to start with:

                           The 50 Worst Charities in America- How to Keep from Being Scammed.

       In the wake of tragedies large and small, they pop up like mushrooms after a rain. With tales of woe and heartbreaking images of children or helpless animals, they beg for assistance. They are the tragi-charities. Most are “one hit wonders” seeking to cash in on the tragedy of the day from floods and fires to missing children and more.

        The “pop-up charity” business is usually local, occasionally regional and only rarely national. Mostly they are the products of individual scammers who smell an opportunity to cash in using the name of a victim who may or may not even be real. They count on local press coverage and a quick website.  These ‘charities’ usually rake in a few thousand dollars and disappear.

The Professionals

Then there are the professional long-term operations, like the phone scammer I mentioned above.  They utilize direct mail or telemarketers to solicit millions of dollars in donations from unsuspecting individuals and businesses. Are you concerned you’ve already been scammed or just want to make sure you won’t be in the future? Here are some of the worst offenders:

1. Kids Wish Network (note – all the right words, Network, Kids, Wish). Unlike the three real children’s charities their name parodies (all legitimately good causes) this is probably the worst so called charity in America.

2. Cancer Fund of America (Cancer is a scary word and many phony or bad charities prey on that fact. Of these 50 bad examples 20% are “cancer” related, in name at least)

3. Children’s Wish Foundation International (another “children’s/wish scam)

4. American Breast Cancer Foundation

5. Firefighters Charitable Foundation (Thirteen of the worst 50 are LEO/First responder themed.  None of them remit more than 20% [most remit less] of collected revenues to any actual cause other than the company which makes the calls.)

6. Breast Cancer Relief Foundation

7. International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO

8. National Veterans Service Fund (Six of the "dirty 50" are veterans related. Exactly how, in most cases is a mystery)

9. American Association of State Troopers

10. Children’s Cancer Fund of America

11. Children’s Cancer Recovery Foundation

12. Youth Development Fund (Doesn’t this sound great? Now dissolved, but Charity Watch, like Charity Navigator a non-profit charity analyst, is aware of this charity soliciting donors using the following names: A Child's Dream, Children's Dream Network

13. Committee for Missing Children

14. Association for Firefighters and Paramedics

15. Project Cure (Bradenton, FL) No one is sure what the "cure" in question is and this scam funds zero research or victim assistance for any disease, but Project Cure is legendary for spending so much of what little comes in (various family members are on the payroll) that they have even defaulted in paying solicitors several times!

16. National Caregiving Foundation

17. Operation Lookout National Center for Missing Youth

18. United States Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

19. Viet Now National Headquarters

20. Police Protective Fund

21. National Cancer Coalition

22. Woman to Woman Breast Cancer Foundation

23. American Foundation for Disabled Children

24. The Veterans Fund

25. Heart Support of America

26. Veterans Assistance Foundation

27. Children’s Charity Fund

28. Wishing Well Foundation USA

29. Defeat Diabetes Foundation

30. Disabled Police Officers of America Inc.

31. National Police Defense Foundation

32. American Association of the Deaf & Blind

33. Reserve Police Officers Association

34. Optimal Medical Foundation

35. Disabled Police and Sheriffs Foundation

36. Disabled Police Officers Counseling Center

37. Children’s Leukemia Research Association

38. United Breast Cancer Foundation

39. Shiloh International Ministries

40. Circle of Friends for American Veterans

41. Find the Children

42. Survivors and Victims Empowered

43. Firefighters Assistance Fund

44. Caring for Our Children Foundation

45. National Narcotic Officers Associations Coalition

46. American Foundation for Children With AIDS

47. Our American Veterans

48. Roger Wyburn- Mason & Jack M Blount Foundation for Eradication of Rheumatoid Disease

49. Firefighters Burn Fund

50. Hope Cancer Fund

         This list was put together by the Tampa Bay Times and The Center for Investigative Reporting based on federal tax filings for the last 10 years and information collected by several of the previously mentioned charity watchdog groups.  Charities are broken up into five main categories: children, cancer, police/law enforcement, veterans, fire and other. These fifty charities account for more than $1.35 Billion in donations. Of that, $970 million went not to victims, but to the people who collected the money. The analysis below breaks down the sordid story further.

        The percentages spent by these “charities” on direct aid to victims range from 0% to a high of only 11.10%. Most of the organizations spent between 0.10% and 8.6% of what they collected in direct cash aid. This is a far cry from what well-meaning contributors intended for their contributions.

        The worst of the worst paid more than 90% of what they collected to solicitors. Thirty-three of the fifty paid between 70% and 89% to solicitors. Overhead costs consumed large chunks of what was remaining. Only the very small amount left may get to the people who actually need it!

        Sooo, the next time, try my “Please hold while I look you up,” or just lay the phone down and go on about your day.