On 6/22/14, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
> Huppenthal is entitled to his opinions. And voters are either going
> to support him or reject him based, in part on his positions.
> Remember, Huppenthal is a product of the same constant brain washing
> that has come to be known as the mass media. While we are all
> impacted by it to one degree or another, some of us slop it up like
> pigs at a trough.
> While there are many Working Class people living in Arizona, a large
> portion of the citizens are made up of older folks who moved there to
> be with their own kind. Over the ten years that Cathy and I spent
> traveling each March to visit my sister in Sun City, I noticed that
> many of the elders who believed that they would be living on peaches
> and rich cream, wound up eking out an existence on bread and thin
> water. Often I wanted to jump up and offer my chair to an elderly man
> or woman tottering past me in a restaurant, only to discover that they
> were my wait person. But even though they were working for wage
> minimum...or for less, under the table...they were solidly against
> social programs, higher wage minimum, free medical, decent increases
> in their social security, and Democrats.
> Any time an elderly waits person made the mistake of expressing such
> Fox News Views to me, I slipped their tip back in my pocket.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
>
> On 6/19/14, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Superintendent admits harsh anonymous blog posts By Cathryn Creno The
>> Arizona Republic He likened welfare recipients to "lazy pigs . He blamed
>> the
>> Great
>>
>> Depression on Franklin D. Roosevelt and said FDR's economic policies gave
>> rise to Hitler. He said Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was
>> responsible
>>
>> for feeding 16 million African-Americans into abortion mills. He is state
>> schools Superintendent John Huppenthal, and he admitted Wednesday that he
>> made
>>
>> those comments, along with hundreds of more mundane musings, in anonymous
>> posts on political blogs. The comments, under various pseudonyms
>> including
>> Falcon9
>>
>> and Thucydides, have been appearing since 2011. Writers for the
>> Democratic
>> Blog for Arizona have been suggesting for several months that all signs
>> pointed
>>
>> to Huppenthal as the author. Huppenthal remained silent on the accusation
>> until Wednesday, when he spoke exclusively to the Arizona Republic. "I
>> love
>> talking
>>
>> about public policy, and I have a passion for engaging in debate,"
>> Huppenthal said on Wednesday. "I probably have 300,000 words out on the
>> Internet, and
>>
>> 100 of them are getting me in trouble. When all of your missteps are
>> there
>> all together for people to see, it's not a pretty picture. In an earlier
>> statement
>>
>> released to The Republic, Huppenthal apologized, saying, "I sincerely
>> regret
>> if my comments have offended anyone. While the inflammatory comments may
>> pose
>>
>> an image issue for Huppenthal, who is seeking re-election,
>> government-accountability experts say they also pose an ethical problem
>> because elected officials
>>
>> should state their opinions publicly. "There is a conflict of interest if
>> an
>> elected official is trying to skew the conversation in a way that
>> supports
>>
>> their views," said Fred Solop, Northern Arizona University's
>> political-science department chairman. "It's a violation of the public
>> trust, and (Huppenthal)
>>
>> needs to be held accountable. Jaime Molera of the Molera-Alvarez
>> consulting
>> firm and Robbie Sherwood of Progress Now Arizona say few candidates and
>> officials
>>
>> go online anonymously. However, Huppenthal said the Internet has made
>> anonymous comments prevalent. Todd Gitlin, an ethics specialist and
>> chairman
>> of the
>>
>> Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, said the issue is a
>> simple one. "Public officials should not post anonymously," he said.
>> "They're elected
>>
>> to be accountable. They can't be held accountable if they hide behind
>> pseudonyms. However, one political consultant said anonymous
>> communications
>> aren't
>>
>> new - or problematic. "American history is littered with people writing
>> anonymous pamphlets," said Doug Cole of Highground Public Affairs
>> Consultants.
>>
>> Blog comments In his statement, Huppenthal said he participated in the
>> blogs
>> anonymously "because I felt that any other (approach) would limit a free
>> and
>>
>> open exchange. The websites include posts on issues including education,
>> the
>> economy, health care and immigration. Huppenthal said he sleeps very
>> little
>>
>> and spends the wee hours reading scientific and academic research, then
>> sharing his thoughts online from his own computer. He said Wednesday that
>> his online
>>
>> handles came from the name of a rocket and an ancient historian. Under
>> the
>> monikers, Huppenthal joined discussions and shared views on issues
>> including
>>
>> abortion, the economy, education and child protection. Some examples: ¦
>> "There is no aspect of (Child Protective Services) nationwide which
>> protects
>> children.
>>
>> No correlation between spending on CPS and child safety," Thucydides
>> posted
>> in January on Blog for Arizona. "The only factors which provide safety
>> for
>>
>> children are employment of parents and good schools on the positive side
>> and
>> welfare enrollment on the negative side. ¦ "It was Darwin, not Hitler,
>> who
>>
>> named the Germans the master race," Thucydides posted in September 2013
>> on
>> the blog Seeing Red AZ. "It was Darwin who expressed approval of
>> eliminating
>>
>> both Jews and Africans. Hitler worked to eliminate the Jews. Margaret
>> Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was given the job of eliminating
>> African-Americans.
>>
>> Hitler fed 6 million Jews into the ovens. Sanger has fed 16 million
>> African-Americans into the abortion mills. ¦ "We now know that (Franklin
>> D.
>> Roosevelt)
>>
>> was almost completely responsible for the great depression," Falcon9
>> posted
>> in 2013 on Blog for Arizona. "Only in liberal mythology did FDR 'save'
>> the
>>
>> nation. ... Worse yet, Roosevelt's disastrous economic policies drug down
>> the whole world and directly led to the rise of a no-name hack named
>> Adolph
>> Hitler
>>
>> who was going nowhere until Germany's economy went into the tank. ¦
>> "Obama
>> is rewarding the lazy pigs with food stamps (44 million people),
>> air-conditioning,
>>
>> free health care, flat-screen TV's (typical of "poor" families).
>> (Editor's
>> note: Parentheses included in posting.) Huppenthal said his posts are
>> meant
>>
>> to correct "a lot of really bad ideas" on political blogs, not to insult.
>> He
>> said his reference to "lazy pigs" refers to a phrase in a nursery fable.
>> In
>>
>> "the Little Red Hen ... in which a fat lazy pig refuses to help the
>> little
>> red hen sow her seeds," he said. "I have never been insensitive to issues
>> around
>>
>> poverty and have fought for public policy that provides opportunities for
>> jobs for all our citizens who want to work and support for those who are
>> vulnerable.
>>
>> Huppenthal said his comparison of Sanger to the Nazis has been taken out
>> of
>> context. Sanger "was at the heart of a eugenics movement, clearly
>> reflected
>>
>> in her writings. In hindsight, I do regret my choice of certain
>> inflammatory
>> words, but I will never apologize for being a pro-life policy maker, or
>> someone
>>
>> who believes in improving conditions for all people," he said in the
>> statement. Political fallout Huppenthal said he does not think the
>> controversy will
>>
>> hurt his re-election chances. "In eight of my 12 elections, I have had to
>> walk through fire," he said. "I don't get into this to get along. He has
>> served
>>
>> as Arizona's top education leader since 2011. Conservatives have
>> criticized
>> him for his support of the Arizona College and Career Ready Standards,
>> based
>>
>> on the Common Core. Liberals have criticized his support of charter
>> schools
>> and private-school vouchers.
>>
>>
>>
>
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Fwd: Charities that make the rich richer; proving that it's good business helping the handicapped
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:44:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Charities that make the rich richer; proving that it's
good business helping the handicapped
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Cc: ceverett@dslextreme.com
Here's the thing...in my humble opinion.
We have our values screwed up. We've been trained, like Pavlov's
dogs, to salivate every time we smell a dollar.
In our world we put a monetary value on everything. An elderly woman
left a paper sack on the bus, containing five thousand dollars. A
fellow took the seat after she had exited the bus and discovered the
sack. He managed to track down the lady and return her life's
savings. And what were the first words out of the reporter's mouth?
"Did she give you a good reward?"
The man might have said, "Honesty is its own reward", but instead, he
sadly shook his head and said, "She just thanked me. Guess she
thought that was good enough. I should have kept the money if that's
all it was worth."
The super star scores points every time he gets his hands on the ball.
Fans flock to the games and the owners of the team pay him huge
amounts of money for his skill. So, is he a team member, or a super
star? If the other team members sat down and decided to simply watch
the game, as if they were spectators, what sort of a score would the
lonely player run up?
The corporate CEO takes his bonus, along with his huge salary and
tucks most of it in his off-shore banks. He is fawned over and feels
that he is so valuable to the corporation that he is merely receiving
his just reward. Is he really that important? Or is he simply one
member of a large team? How much money and business will he bring in
if all the people working for the corporation were to sit down and
watch him work?
To my way of thinking it is a cop out to argue that the market place
will determine the fair value of each person's labor. Since we can
prove that the market place can be manipulated, and there really is no
such a thing as free enterprise in the real world, why do working
class men and women continue to support such a corrupt system?
A new president will not change things. Replacing all of Congress
will make no difference. A revolution will only replace the present
Ruling Class with a new Gang of Opportunists. None of that will
amount to a hill of beans unless we shake up our entire value system.
But I know that a shake up has about as much appeal to Americans as a
bowl of soy bean chowder.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/17/14, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> mee too.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Claude Everett
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:11 PM
> To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Charities that make the rich richer
>
> Personally I feel that no CEO or director of a company "For Profit", or
> "Non
> Profit Charity" should earn no more than 4 times the income of the lowest
> paid employee.
>
>
> Regards,
> Claude Everett
> "Every one has a disability, Some, are more aware of it than others."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of ted chittenden
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:12 AM
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Charities that make the rich richer
>
> My mom now refuses to support any United Way charities because of what the
> CEO is paid. She believes that the CEOs of charities should receive nothing
> with running the charities playing second fiddle to running actual
> businesses. Unfortunately, running a charity is actually a fulltime job in
> and of itself so I really don't think that paying the heads of charities
> absolutely nothing and expecting them to work "real" jobs in private
> businesses is really going to assist the poor (in fact, it would probably
> exacerbate the situation against the poor). However, Mr. Baker may be on
> the
> right track for both charities and profit-generating businesses when he
> suggests having set limits on executive pay based on how much their
> low-level employees earn. Unfortunately, I don't think the current Justices
> of the U.S. Supreme Court would agree with him as money is supposed to be
> free speech, and I also don't think that most executives would agree with
> him, either.
> --
> Ted Chittenden
>
> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
> ---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Charities that make the rich richer
> Either end obscene pay at charitable organizations or revoke their
> tax-exempt status June 16, 2014 4:15AM ET by Dean Baker @DeanBaker13 We
> usually think of charities as institutions that direct money from those on
> top to those who are most in need. But in our vibrant 21st century economy,
> charities often funnel money in the opposite direction, with the rest of us
> subsidizing the incomes of the very rich. That is the implication of
> several
> recent news stories.
> Take, for example, John Sexton, president of New York University, a
> tax-exempt institution. The university was recently in the news because of
> a
> story reporting that workers building its Abu Dhabi campus are often beaten
> and have their wages stolen. This campus is part of an ambitious expansion
> plan designed by Sexton, who reportedly makes $1.5 million a year and
> stands
> to pocket a "longevity bonus" of $2.5 million if he stays into 2015.
> The University of Chicago is another school whose president, Robert Zimmer,
> appears to be doing rather well financially. Zimmer's total compensation
> for
> 2013 was reportedly $1.9 million, after having spiked at $3.4 million the
> prior year. This compensation comes in spite of the fact that the school
> has
> an operating deficit and may be at risk of a credit downgrade.
> A study by the Institute for Policy Studies found that student debt and
> low-paid faculty increased more rapidly at the universities with the 25
> highest-paid presidents than the national average. At the very least, this
> suggests high presidential pay is not associated with scoring well in terms
> of relieving the burdens of those most in need in higher education -
> student
> debtors and adjuncts.
> There is undoubtedly much more that could be said about high-paid
> university
> administrators or heads of other nonprofits, who don't seem to be earning
> their keep. But this is not just a story of university boards possibly
> using
> bad judgment in designing compensation packages for top management. The pay
> for these millionaires comes directly out of the pockets of the rest of us
> in the same way as the food stamps or disability payments that get
> conservatives so excited.
> These institutions all enjoy special tax exemptions as charitable
> organizations. Their wealthy contributors can deduct the money they give to
> New York University or the University of Chicago from their taxable income.
> Since most of these universities' contributions come from people in the top
> tax bracket, taxpayers are effectively paying 40 cents of each dollar the
> institutions receive in contributions. That means we are picking up a large
> chunk of the paychecks of Sexton, Zimmer and the rest of the gang.
> There is a simple remedy for the high pay at tax-exempt institutions:
> Make it illegal.
> If we took the extreme case and assumed that all of a university's revenue
> came directly or indirectly from tax-deductible contributions, then
> taxpayers would have paid roughly $600,000 toward Sexton's 2013 salary and
> $680,000 of Zimmer's paycheck. For comparison purposes, the average annual
> food stamp benefit is roughly $1,600 per person. This would mean that
> taxpayers gave Sexton roughly as much money as they would to 375 of the
> "takers" who get food stamps, and Zimmer as much as 400.
> Of course, this comparison is not entirely fair. A university gets much of
> its money from tuition and other sources, so it is not correct to claim
> that
> all of its president's pay came from tax-deductible contributions. On the
> other hand, there are many charities and foundations that rely almost
> entirely on such contributions or the income from endowments that were
> created from them. In these cases it would be reasonable to assume that
> roughly 40 percent of the pay for the presidents and other top executives
> came from taxpayers.
> Most people would likely be bothered if they knew they were subsidizing the
> compensation of some of the highest-paid people in the country.
> Unfortunately, this fact is rarely mentioned in the news. We are far more
> likely to see articles on taxpayer subsidies for food stamps or disability.
> There is a simple remedy for the high pay at tax-exempt institutions: Make
> it illegal. We can just put a cap on pay at tax-exempt organizations - say,
> at 15 times the average production worker's pay (or $600,000 a year). That
> would limit the subsidy the rest of us provide to the very rich.
> This is not an interference with the freedom of the University of Chicago
> and New York University to pay their presidents whatever they like. They
> would just have to organize themselves as regular for-profit corporations.
> Then their presidents would have to figure out a way to win the charity of
> shareholders rather than taxpayers.
> Fans of the free market should be completely behind this sort of
> initiative.
> After all, if they are upset when the government gives someone $1,600 a
> year
> for food stamps, how could they not be infuriated when the government gives
> several hundred times as much to university presidents or other highly paid
> executives at tax-exempt institutions? If these presidents are worth their
> paychecks, then the private sector should be happy to cough up the money
> without needing a subsidy from the government.
> Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
> and
> author, most recently, of The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets
> Progressive.
> The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
> necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editori Charities that make the
> rich richer Either end obscene pay at charitable organizations or revoke
> their tax-exempt status June 16, 2014 4:15AM ET by Dean Baker @DeanBaker13
> We usually think of charities as institutions that direct money from those
> on top to those who are most in need. But in our vibrant 21st century
> economy, charities often funnel money in the opposite direction, with the
> rest of us subsidizing the incomes of the very rich. That is the
> implication
> of several recent news stories.
> Take, for example, John Sexton, president of New York University, a
> tax-exempt institution. The university was recently in the news because of
> a
> story reporting that workers building its Abu Dhabi campus are often beaten
> and have their wages stolen. This campus is part of an ambitious expansion
> plan designed by Sexton, who reportedly makes $1.5 million a year and
> stands
> to pocket a "longevity bonus" of $2.5 million if he stays into 2015.
> The University of Chicago is another school whose president, Robert Zimmer,
> appears to be doing rather well financially. Zimmer's total compensation
> for
> 2013 was reportedly $1.9 million, after having spiked at $3.4 million the
> prior year. This compensation comes in spite of the fact that the school
> has
> an operating deficit and may be at risk of a credit downgrade.
> A study by the Institute for Policy Studies found that student debt and
> low-paid faculty increased more rapidly at the universities with the 25
> highest-paid presidents than the national average. At the very least, this
> suggests high presidential pay is not associated with scoring well in terms
> of relieving the burdens of those most in need in higher education -
> student
> debtors and adjuncts.
> There is undoubtedly much more that could be said about high-paid
> university
> administrators or heads of other nonprofits, who don't seem to be earning
> their keep. But this is not just a story of university boards possibly
> using
> bad judgment in designing compensation packages for top management. The pay
> for these millionaires comes directly out of the pockets of the rest of us
> in the same way as the food stamps or disability payments that get
> conservatives so excited.
> These institutions all enjoy special tax exemptions as charitable
> organizations. Their wealthy contributors can deduct the money they give to
> New York University or the University of Chicago from their taxable income.
> Since most of these universities' contributions come from people in the top
> tax bracket, taxpayers are effectively paying 40 cents of each dollar the
> institutions receive in contributions. That means we are picking up a large
> chunk of the paychecks of Sexton, Zimmer and the rest of the gang.
> There is a simple remedy for the high pay at tax-exempt institutions:
> Make it illegal.
> If we took the extreme case and assumed that all of a university's revenue
> came directly or indirectly from tax-deductible contributions, then
> taxpayers would have paid roughly $600,000 toward Sexton's 2013 salary and
> $680,000 of Zimmer's paycheck. For comparison purposes, the average annual
> food stamp benefit is roughly $1,600 per person. This would mean that
> taxpayers gave Sexton roughly as much money as they would to 375 of the
> "takers" who get food stamps, and Zimmer as much as 400.
> Of course, this comparison is not entirely fair. A university gets much of
> its money from tuition and other sources, so it is not correct to claim
> that
> all of its president's pay came from tax-deductible contributions. On the
> other hand, there are many charities and foundations that rely almost
> entirely on such contributions or the income from endowments that were
> created from them. In these cases it would be reasonable to assume that
> roughly 40 percent of the pay for the presidents and other top executives
> came from taxpayers.
> Most people would likely be bothered if they knew they were subsidizing the
> compensation of some of the highest-paid people in the country.
> Unfortunately, this fact is rarely mentioned in the news. We are far more
> likely to see articles on taxpayer subsidies for food stamps or disability.
> There is a simple remedy for the high pay at tax-exempt institutions: Make
> it illegal. We can just put a cap on pay at tax-exempt organizations - say,
> at 15 times the average production worker's pay (or $600,000 a year). That
> would limit the subsidy the rest of us provide to the very rich.
> This is not an interference with the freedom of the University of Chicago
> and New York University to pay their presidents whatever they like. They
> would just have to organize themselves as regular for-profit corporations.
> Then their presidents would have to figure out a way to win the charity of
> shareholders rather than taxpayers.
> Fans of the free market should be completely behind this sort of
> initiative.
> After all, if they are upset when the government gives someone $1,600 a
> year
> for food stamps, how could they not be infuriated when the government gives
> several hundred times as much to university presidents or other highly paid
> executives at tax-exempt institutions? If these presidents are worth their
> paychecks, then the private sector should be happy to cough up the money
> without needing a subsidy from the government.
> Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
> and
> author, most recently, of The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets
> Progressive.
> The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
> necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial polic
> http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/charity-universitytaxexemptsext
> onzimmer.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:44:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Charities that make the rich richer; proving that it's
good business helping the handicapped
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Cc: ceverett@dslextreme.com
Here's the thing...in my humble opinion.
We have our values screwed up. We've been trained, like Pavlov's
dogs, to salivate every time we smell a dollar.
In our world we put a monetary value on everything. An elderly woman
left a paper sack on the bus, containing five thousand dollars. A
fellow took the seat after she had exited the bus and discovered the
sack. He managed to track down the lady and return her life's
savings. And what were the first words out of the reporter's mouth?
"Did she give you a good reward?"
The man might have said, "Honesty is its own reward", but instead, he
sadly shook his head and said, "She just thanked me. Guess she
thought that was good enough. I should have kept the money if that's
all it was worth."
The super star scores points every time he gets his hands on the ball.
Fans flock to the games and the owners of the team pay him huge
amounts of money for his skill. So, is he a team member, or a super
star? If the other team members sat down and decided to simply watch
the game, as if they were spectators, what sort of a score would the
lonely player run up?
The corporate CEO takes his bonus, along with his huge salary and
tucks most of it in his off-shore banks. He is fawned over and feels
that he is so valuable to the corporation that he is merely receiving
his just reward. Is he really that important? Or is he simply one
member of a large team? How much money and business will he bring in
if all the people working for the corporation were to sit down and
watch him work?
To my way of thinking it is a cop out to argue that the market place
will determine the fair value of each person's labor. Since we can
prove that the market place can be manipulated, and there really is no
such a thing as free enterprise in the real world, why do working
class men and women continue to support such a corrupt system?
A new president will not change things. Replacing all of Congress
will make no difference. A revolution will only replace the present
Ruling Class with a new Gang of Opportunists. None of that will
amount to a hill of beans unless we shake up our entire value system.
But I know that a shake up has about as much appeal to Americans as a
bowl of soy bean chowder.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/17/14, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> mee too.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Claude Everett
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:11 PM
> To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Charities that make the rich richer
>
> Personally I feel that no CEO or director of a company "For Profit", or
> "Non
> Profit Charity" should earn no more than 4 times the income of the lowest
> paid employee.
>
>
> Regards,
> Claude Everett
> "Every one has a disability, Some, are more aware of it than others."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of ted chittenden
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:12 AM
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Charities that make the rich richer
>
> My mom now refuses to support any United Way charities because of what the
> CEO is paid. She believes that the CEOs of charities should receive nothing
> with running the charities playing second fiddle to running actual
> businesses. Unfortunately, running a charity is actually a fulltime job in
> and of itself so I really don't think that paying the heads of charities
> absolutely nothing and expecting them to work "real" jobs in private
> businesses is really going to assist the poor (in fact, it would probably
> exacerbate the situation against the poor). However, Mr. Baker may be on
> the
> right track for both charities and profit-generating businesses when he
> suggests having set limits on executive pay based on how much their
> low-level employees earn. Unfortunately, I don't think the current Justices
> of the U.S. Supreme Court would agree with him as money is supposed to be
> free speech, and I also don't think that most executives would agree with
> him, either.
> --
> Ted Chittenden
>
> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
> ---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Charities that make the rich richer
> Either end obscene pay at charitable organizations or revoke their
> tax-exempt status June 16, 2014 4:15AM ET by Dean Baker @DeanBaker13 We
> usually think of charities as institutions that direct money from those on
> top to those who are most in need. But in our vibrant 21st century economy,
> charities often funnel money in the opposite direction, with the rest of us
> subsidizing the incomes of the very rich. That is the implication of
> several
> recent news stories.
> Take, for example, John Sexton, president of New York University, a
> tax-exempt institution. The university was recently in the news because of
> a
> story reporting that workers building its Abu Dhabi campus are often beaten
> and have their wages stolen. This campus is part of an ambitious expansion
> plan designed by Sexton, who reportedly makes $1.5 million a year and
> stands
> to pocket a "longevity bonus" of $2.5 million if he stays into 2015.
> The University of Chicago is another school whose president, Robert Zimmer,
> appears to be doing rather well financially. Zimmer's total compensation
> for
> 2013 was reportedly $1.9 million, after having spiked at $3.4 million the
> prior year. This compensation comes in spite of the fact that the school
> has
> an operating deficit and may be at risk of a credit downgrade.
> A study by the Institute for Policy Studies found that student debt and
> low-paid faculty increased more rapidly at the universities with the 25
> highest-paid presidents than the national average. At the very least, this
> suggests high presidential pay is not associated with scoring well in terms
> of relieving the burdens of those most in need in higher education -
> student
> debtors and adjuncts.
> There is undoubtedly much more that could be said about high-paid
> university
> administrators or heads of other nonprofits, who don't seem to be earning
> their keep. But this is not just a story of university boards possibly
> using
> bad judgment in designing compensation packages for top management. The pay
> for these millionaires comes directly out of the pockets of the rest of us
> in the same way as the food stamps or disability payments that get
> conservatives so excited.
> These institutions all enjoy special tax exemptions as charitable
> organizations. Their wealthy contributors can deduct the money they give to
> New York University or the University of Chicago from their taxable income.
> Since most of these universities' contributions come from people in the top
> tax bracket, taxpayers are effectively paying 40 cents of each dollar the
> institutions receive in contributions. That means we are picking up a large
> chunk of the paychecks of Sexton, Zimmer and the rest of the gang.
> There is a simple remedy for the high pay at tax-exempt institutions:
> Make it illegal.
> If we took the extreme case and assumed that all of a university's revenue
> came directly or indirectly from tax-deductible contributions, then
> taxpayers would have paid roughly $600,000 toward Sexton's 2013 salary and
> $680,000 of Zimmer's paycheck. For comparison purposes, the average annual
> food stamp benefit is roughly $1,600 per person. This would mean that
> taxpayers gave Sexton roughly as much money as they would to 375 of the
> "takers" who get food stamps, and Zimmer as much as 400.
> Of course, this comparison is not entirely fair. A university gets much of
> its money from tuition and other sources, so it is not correct to claim
> that
> all of its president's pay came from tax-deductible contributions. On the
> other hand, there are many charities and foundations that rely almost
> entirely on such contributions or the income from endowments that were
> created from them. In these cases it would be reasonable to assume that
> roughly 40 percent of the pay for the presidents and other top executives
> came from taxpayers.
> Most people would likely be bothered if they knew they were subsidizing the
> compensation of some of the highest-paid people in the country.
> Unfortunately, this fact is rarely mentioned in the news. We are far more
> likely to see articles on taxpayer subsidies for food stamps or disability.
> There is a simple remedy for the high pay at tax-exempt institutions: Make
> it illegal. We can just put a cap on pay at tax-exempt organizations - say,
> at 15 times the average production worker's pay (or $600,000 a year). That
> would limit the subsidy the rest of us provide to the very rich.
> This is not an interference with the freedom of the University of Chicago
> and New York University to pay their presidents whatever they like. They
> would just have to organize themselves as regular for-profit corporations.
> Then their presidents would have to figure out a way to win the charity of
> shareholders rather than taxpayers.
> Fans of the free market should be completely behind this sort of
> initiative.
> After all, if they are upset when the government gives someone $1,600 a
> year
> for food stamps, how could they not be infuriated when the government gives
> several hundred times as much to university presidents or other highly paid
> executives at tax-exempt institutions? If these presidents are worth their
> paychecks, then the private sector should be happy to cough up the money
> without needing a subsidy from the government.
> Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
> and
> author, most recently, of The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets
> Progressive.
> The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
> necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editori Charities that make the
> rich richer Either end obscene pay at charitable organizations or revoke
> their tax-exempt status June 16, 2014 4:15AM ET by Dean Baker @DeanBaker13
> We usually think of charities as institutions that direct money from those
> on top to those who are most in need. But in our vibrant 21st century
> economy, charities often funnel money in the opposite direction, with the
> rest of us subsidizing the incomes of the very rich. That is the
> implication
> of several recent news stories.
> Take, for example, John Sexton, president of New York University, a
> tax-exempt institution. The university was recently in the news because of
> a
> story reporting that workers building its Abu Dhabi campus are often beaten
> and have their wages stolen. This campus is part of an ambitious expansion
> plan designed by Sexton, who reportedly makes $1.5 million a year and
> stands
> to pocket a "longevity bonus" of $2.5 million if he stays into 2015.
> The University of Chicago is another school whose president, Robert Zimmer,
> appears to be doing rather well financially. Zimmer's total compensation
> for
> 2013 was reportedly $1.9 million, after having spiked at $3.4 million the
> prior year. This compensation comes in spite of the fact that the school
> has
> an operating deficit and may be at risk of a credit downgrade.
> A study by the Institute for Policy Studies found that student debt and
> low-paid faculty increased more rapidly at the universities with the 25
> highest-paid presidents than the national average. At the very least, this
> suggests high presidential pay is not associated with scoring well in terms
> of relieving the burdens of those most in need in higher education -
> student
> debtors and adjuncts.
> There is undoubtedly much more that could be said about high-paid
> university
> administrators or heads of other nonprofits, who don't seem to be earning
> their keep. But this is not just a story of university boards possibly
> using
> bad judgment in designing compensation packages for top management. The pay
> for these millionaires comes directly out of the pockets of the rest of us
> in the same way as the food stamps or disability payments that get
> conservatives so excited.
> These institutions all enjoy special tax exemptions as charitable
> organizations. Their wealthy contributors can deduct the money they give to
> New York University or the University of Chicago from their taxable income.
> Since most of these universities' contributions come from people in the top
> tax bracket, taxpayers are effectively paying 40 cents of each dollar the
> institutions receive in contributions. That means we are picking up a large
> chunk of the paychecks of Sexton, Zimmer and the rest of the gang.
> There is a simple remedy for the high pay at tax-exempt institutions:
> Make it illegal.
> If we took the extreme case and assumed that all of a university's revenue
> came directly or indirectly from tax-deductible contributions, then
> taxpayers would have paid roughly $600,000 toward Sexton's 2013 salary and
> $680,000 of Zimmer's paycheck. For comparison purposes, the average annual
> food stamp benefit is roughly $1,600 per person. This would mean that
> taxpayers gave Sexton roughly as much money as they would to 375 of the
> "takers" who get food stamps, and Zimmer as much as 400.
> Of course, this comparison is not entirely fair. A university gets much of
> its money from tuition and other sources, so it is not correct to claim
> that
> all of its president's pay came from tax-deductible contributions. On the
> other hand, there are many charities and foundations that rely almost
> entirely on such contributions or the income from endowments that were
> created from them. In these cases it would be reasonable to assume that
> roughly 40 percent of the pay for the presidents and other top executives
> came from taxpayers.
> Most people would likely be bothered if they knew they were subsidizing the
> compensation of some of the highest-paid people in the country.
> Unfortunately, this fact is rarely mentioned in the news. We are far more
> likely to see articles on taxpayer subsidies for food stamps or disability.
> There is a simple remedy for the high pay at tax-exempt institutions: Make
> it illegal. We can just put a cap on pay at tax-exempt organizations - say,
> at 15 times the average production worker's pay (or $600,000 a year). That
> would limit the subsidy the rest of us provide to the very rich.
> This is not an interference with the freedom of the University of Chicago
> and New York University to pay their presidents whatever they like. They
> would just have to organize themselves as regular for-profit corporations.
> Then their presidents would have to figure out a way to win the charity of
> shareholders rather than taxpayers.
> Fans of the free market should be completely behind this sort of
> initiative.
> After all, if they are upset when the government gives someone $1,600 a
> year
> for food stamps, how could they not be infuriated when the government gives
> several hundred times as much to university presidents or other highly paid
> executives at tax-exempt institutions? If these presidents are worth their
> paychecks, then the private sector should be happy to cough up the money
> without needing a subsidy from the government.
> Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
> and
> author, most recently, of The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets
> Progressive.
> The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
> necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial polic
> http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/charity-universitytaxexemptsext
> onzimmer.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Fwd: more on the Catholic babies and Free Will
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:55:33 -0400
Subject: RE: more on the Catholic babies and Free Will
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Carl,
I like your explanation at the beginning of your email regarding why none of
us has free will and I agree wholeheartedly, of my own free will.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:48 PM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: more on the Catholic babies and Free Will
Pam, Alice and All Believers in Free Will,
Allow me to state my bias right from the git go.
There Is No Such A Thing As Free Will!!!
From the moment of our conception we are shaped and pressured and
influenced. Long before we are aware of our own being, while we are totally
dependent upon our Mother's womb. By the time we struggle out of the birth
canal, much of our future has already been decided. Our parents, their
parents and so on, back to the beginning of Man, determine much of who we
are and what we will be able to do. How we are nourished and loved and what
we are taught, both informally as well as formally, establishes a base of
information from which we draw in making Life's Choices.
Every choice I make is based on all of those factors and more.
Becoming totally blind at the age of 30 cut off many choices I might have
made as a sighted person, but opened other doors. So I "freely"
chose to become a rehabilitation teacher of the blind, a choice I had never
entertained during my years as a sighted man.
My friend said, "I became a Pastor by my own Free Will". But he also told
me, " God opened doors and showed me the way".
So, which was it?
To me, saying that I can exercise my free will is sheer silliness.
Even deciding to write this post is based on countless previous decisions.
I chose to read email rather than to do my work. Free choice? It was a
long day, beginning with having to bring Winston the Wonder Cat, to have an
eye enucleation, then spending hours in the office contacting clients and
future clients, hunting down information and resources, returning to the
vet's to pick up Winston, bring him home and spend time babying him, and
back to the office without dinner. So I chose to fiddle with my email.
I try to figure out where I exercised Free Will in my day to day life.
I like to think that I'm an independent blind man. But if I am, I can't
find out just where that is.
So, before I begin going in circles, I will go, of my own free will, and
grab those little chocolate doughnuts I stuck in the freezer.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/10/14, Pam Mathers <lind139@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Carl, I agree with Alice. No one forces anyone to follow God or to
> become a Christian. I'm sure when you were a Christian you became one
> by choice, not because someone told you that you must do it. People
> who become Christians do so by choice, not because they are forced to
> so I don't understand where this idea of dictatorship comes in.
> Christians are not slaves.
> On Jun 10, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
>
>> Oh, come on now Carl, you know better than that, haha...I would think
>> that even in the speaking in tongues, fundamentalist brand of
>> fanatical Christianity that you used to inhabit, the concept of free
>> will was rattling around in there somewhere...and God, as he defines
>> himself, or, if you prefer, the way men have defined/created him does
>> permit dissent...otherwise, you would be forced to believe in Him,
>> and you would not have the choice of which you have availed yourself,
>> not to believe, to decline...
>> That's not a dictator by my definition...a dictator would say,
>> believe in me, follow my ways, or off with your head or some other
>> form of coercion or punishment...and, since in your unbelief, you
>> don't believe in an afterlife or any kind of Deity whatsoever, even
>> that threat of eternal damnation is, for you, an empty one...Alice On
>> Jun 10, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The examples
>>> are all around us, and still we want to worship an absolute
>>> dictator. God Almighty.
>>>
>>> carl jarvis
>>> on Earth be so cruel and hard hearted, if On 6/9/14, Miriam Vieni
>>> <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Williams writes: "It gets worse. One week after revelations of how
>>>> over the span of 35 years, a County Galway home for unwed mothers
>>>> cavalierly disposed of the bodies of nearly 800 babies and toddlers
>>>> on a site that held a septic tank, new reports are leveling a whole
>>>> different set of charges about what happened to the children of
>>>> those Irish homes."
>>>>
>>>> (photo: AdrianNunez/Shutterstock.com)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Catholic Irish Babies Scandal: It Gets Much Worse By Mary
>>>> Elizabeth Williams, Salon
>>>> 09 June 14
>>>>
>>>> New revelations about unauthorized vaccine trials
>>>>
>>>> It gets worse. One week after revelations of how over the span of
>>>> 35 years, a County Galway home for unwed mothers cavalierly
>>>> disposed of the bodies of nearly 800 babies and toddlers on a site
>>>> that held a septic tank, new reports are leveling a whole different
>>>> set of charges about what happened to the children of those Irish
>>>> homes.
>>>> In harrowing new information revealed this weekend, the Daily Mail
>>>> has uncovered medical records that suggest 2,051 children across
>>>> several Irish care homes were given a diphtheria vaccine from
>>>> pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome in a suspected illegal
>>>> drug trial that ran from 1930 to 1936. As the Mail reports,
>>>> "Michael Dwyer, of Cork University's School of History, found the
>>>> child vaccination data by trawling through tens of thousands of
>>>> medical journal articles and archive files. He discovered that the
>>>> trials were carried out before the vaccine was made available for
>>>> commercial use in the UK." There is no evidence yet - and there may
>>>> never be
>>>> - that any family consent was ever offered, or about how many
>>>> children had adverse effects or died as a result of the
>>>> vaccinations. Dwyer told the Mail, "The fact that no record of
>>>> these trials can be found in the files relating to the Department
>>>> of Local Government and Public Health, the Municipal Health Reports
>>>> relating to Cork and Dublin, or the Wellcome Archives in London,
>>>> suggests that vaccine trials would not have been acceptable to
>>>> government, municipal authorities, or the general public.
>>>> However, the fact that reports of these trials were published in
>>>> the most prestigious medical journals suggests that this type of
>>>> human experimentation was largely accepted by medical practitioners
>>>> and facilitated by authorities in charge of children's residential
>>>> institutions." In a related story, GSK - formerly Wellcome -
>>>> revealed Monday on Newstalk Radio that 298 children in 10 different
>>>> care homes were involved in medical trials in the '60s and '70s
>>>> that left "80 children ill after they were accidentally
>>>> administered a vaccine intended for cattle."
>>>> Irish Minister of State for Training and Skills Ciaran Cannon has
>>>> called for a public inquiry into the treatment of the children and
>>>> their deaths.
>>>> The
>>>> archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has also called for an
>>>> investigation, adding that it should be free of Catholic Church
>>>> interference. "We have to look at the whole culture of mother and
>>>> baby homes; they're talking about medical experiments there," he
>>>> told RTE Radio this weekend. "They're very complicated and very
>>>> sensitive issues, but the only way we will come out of this
>>>> particular period of our history is when the truth comes out." And
>>>> a spokesman for GSK said the latest revelations, "if true, are
>>>> clearly very distressing."
>>>> This is not even the first time information on these kinds of
>>>> vaccine trials has come to light. In 2010, the Irish Independent
>>>> uncovered how children born in the homes were subjected to a single
>>>> "four-in-one" vaccine trial without their mothers' permission. The
>>>> children often didn't even know what they'd been subjected to until
>>>> well into adulthood. Appallingly, Ireland had no laws regarding
>>>> medical testing on humans until 1987. Mari Steed, who was born at
>>>> the Bessborough home in the '60s, told the Sunday Independent, "We
>>>> were used as human guinea pigs."
>>>> What Ireland is only now beginning to fully investigate and
>>>> understand is a story involving potentially thousands of children
>>>> who were almost certainly neglected and mistreated, and whose
>>>> deaths were addressed as a mere trash disposal issue. It is now
>>>> believed a total of upward of 4,000 children were similarly
>>>> disposed of in other homes across the country. It's a story of
>>>> untold even higher numbers of children who were unwitting subjects
>>>> in a vaccine test that further refused to see them as human beings,
>>>> capable of fear and pain. And an interesting insight into why so
>>>> many children may have been so casually treated and tossed away was
>>>> revealed in a recent feature on the scandal in the Independent.
>>>> Babies born to unwed mothers - and this, let it be noted, would
>>>> have included mothers who were raped - "were denied baptism and, if
>>>> they died from the illness and disease rife in such facilities,
>>>> also denied a Christian burial." In other words, the Catholic
>>>> institutions that these women and their children were forced to
>>>> turn to as their only refuge viciously turned their backs on them -
>>>> treating them, quite literally, as garbage. This is abuse of the
>>>> highest order. Abuse in life, abuse in death. Carried out by
>>>> religious orders so warped, so perverted in their utter lack of
>>>> mercy that they participated in the suffering of an unfathomable
>>>> number of babies and children. This is what the Catholic Church of
>>>> Ireland is capable of, when it is given free rein over the bodies
>>>> of its most vulnerable members. And an official inquiry hasn't even
>>>> begun. As Michael Dwyer told the Mail this weekend, "What I have
>>>> found is just the tip of a very large and submerged iceberg."
>>>>
>>>> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference
>>>> not valid.
>>>>
>>>> (photo: AdrianNunez/Shutterstock.com)
>>>> http://www.salon.com/2014/06/09/the_catholic_irish_babies_scandal_i
>>>> t_gets_mu
>>>> ch_worse/http://www.salon.com/2014/06/09/the_catholic_irish_babies_
>>>> scandal_i
>>>> t_gets_much_worse/
>>>> The Catholic Irish Babies Scandal: It Gets Much Worse By Mary
>>>> Elizabeth Williams, Salon
>>>> 09 June 14
>>>> New revelations about unauthorized vaccine trials t gets worse. One
>>>> week after revelations of how over the span of 35 years, a County
>>>> Galway home for unwed mothers cavalierly disposed of the bodies of
>>>> nearly 800 babies and toddlers on a site that held a septic tank,
>>>> new reports are leveling a whole different set of charges about
>>>> what happened to the children of those Irish homes.
>>>> In harrowing new information revealed this weekend, the Daily Mail
>>>> has uncovered medical records that suggest 2,051 children across
>>>> several Irish care homes were given a diphtheria vaccine from
>>>> pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome in a suspected illegal
>>>> drug trial that ran from 1930 to 1936. As the Mail reports,
>>>> "Michael Dwyer, of Cork University's School of History, found the
>>>> child vaccination data by trawling through tens of thousands of
>>>> medical journal articles and archive files. He discovered that the
>>>> trials were carried out before the vaccine was made available for
>>>> commercial use in the UK." There is no evidence yet - and there may
>>>> never be
>>>> - that any family consent was ever offered, or about how many
>>>> children had adverse effects or died as a result of the
>>>> vaccinations. Dwyer told the Mail, "The fact that no record of
>>>> these trials can be found in the files relating to the Department
>>>> of Local Government and Public Health, the Municipal Health Reports
>>>> relating to Cork and Dublin, or the Wellcome Archives in London,
>>>> suggests that vaccine trials would not have been acceptable to
>>>> government, municipal authorities, or the general public.
>>>> However, the fact that reports of these trials were published in
>>>> the most prestigious medical journals suggests that this type of
>>>> human experimentation was largely accepted by medical practitioners
>>>> and facilitated by authorities in charge of children's residential
>>>> institutions." In a related story, GSK - formerly Wellcome -
>>>> revealed Monday on Newstalk Radio that 298 children in 10 different
>>>> care homes were involved in medical trials in the '60s and '70s
>>>> that left "80 children ill after they were accidentally
>>>> administered a vaccine intended for cattle."
>>>> Irish Minister of State for Training and Skills Ciaran Cannon has
>>>> called for a public inquiry into the treatment of the children and
>>>> their deaths.
>>>> The
>>>> archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has also called for an
>>>> investigation, adding that it should be free of Catholic Church
>>>> interference. "We have to look at the whole culture of mother and
>>>> baby homes; they're talking about medical experiments there," he
>>>> told RTE Radio this weekend. "They're very complicated and very
>>>> sensitive issues, but the only way we will come out of this
>>>> particular period of our history is when the truth comes out." And
>>>> a spokesman for GSK said the latest revelations, "if true, are
>>>> clearly very distressing."
>>>> This is not even the first time information on these kinds of
>>>> vaccine trials has come to light. In 2010, the Irish Independent
>>>> uncovered how children born in the homes were subjected to a single
>>>> "four-in-one" vaccine trial without their mothers' permission. The
>>>> children often didn't even know what they'd been subjected to until
>>>> well into adulthood. Appallingly, Ireland had no laws regarding
>>>> medical testing on humans until 1987. Mari Steed, who was born at
>>>> the Bessborough home in the '60s, told the Sunday Independent, "We
>>>> were used as human guinea pigs."
>>>> What Ireland is only now beginning to fully investigate and
>>>> understand is a story involving potentially thousands of children
>>>> who were almost certainly neglected and mistreated, and whose
>>>> deaths were addressed as a mere trash disposal issue. It is now
>>>> believed a total of upward of 4,000 children were similarly
>>>> disposed of in other homes across the country. It's a story of
>>>> untold even higher numbers of children who were unwitting subjects
>>>> in a vaccine test that further refused to see them as human beings,
>>>> capable of fear and pain. And an interesting insight into why so
>>>> many children may have been so casually treated and tossed away was
>>>> revealed in a recent feature on the scandal in the Independent.
>>>> Babies born to unwed mothers - and this, let it be noted, would
>>>> have included mothers who were raped - "were denied baptism and, if
>>>> they died from the illness and disease rife in such facilities,
>>>> also denied a Christian burial." In other words, the Catholic
>>>> institutions that these women and their children were forced to
>>>> turn to as their only refuge viciously turned their backs on them -
>>>> treating them, quite literally, as garbage. This is abuse of the
>>>> highest order. Abuse in life, abuse in death. Carried out by
>>>> religious orders so warped, so perverted in their utter lack of
>>>> mercy that they participated in the suffering of an unfathomable
>>>> number of babies and children. This is what the Catholic Church of
>>>> Ireland is capable of, when it is given free rein over the bodies
>>>> of its most vulnerable members. And an official inquiry hasn't even
>>>> begun. As Michael Dwyer told the Mail this weekend, "What I have
>>>> found is just the tip of a very large and submerged iceberg."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
>
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:55:33 -0400
Subject: RE: more on the Catholic babies and Free Will
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Carl,
I like your explanation at the beginning of your email regarding why none of
us has free will and I agree wholeheartedly, of my own free will.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:48 PM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: more on the Catholic babies and Free Will
Pam, Alice and All Believers in Free Will,
Allow me to state my bias right from the git go.
There Is No Such A Thing As Free Will!!!
From the moment of our conception we are shaped and pressured and
influenced. Long before we are aware of our own being, while we are totally
dependent upon our Mother's womb. By the time we struggle out of the birth
canal, much of our future has already been decided. Our parents, their
parents and so on, back to the beginning of Man, determine much of who we
are and what we will be able to do. How we are nourished and loved and what
we are taught, both informally as well as formally, establishes a base of
information from which we draw in making Life's Choices.
Every choice I make is based on all of those factors and more.
Becoming totally blind at the age of 30 cut off many choices I might have
made as a sighted person, but opened other doors. So I "freely"
chose to become a rehabilitation teacher of the blind, a choice I had never
entertained during my years as a sighted man.
My friend said, "I became a Pastor by my own Free Will". But he also told
me, " God opened doors and showed me the way".
So, which was it?
To me, saying that I can exercise my free will is sheer silliness.
Even deciding to write this post is based on countless previous decisions.
I chose to read email rather than to do my work. Free choice? It was a
long day, beginning with having to bring Winston the Wonder Cat, to have an
eye enucleation, then spending hours in the office contacting clients and
future clients, hunting down information and resources, returning to the
vet's to pick up Winston, bring him home and spend time babying him, and
back to the office without dinner. So I chose to fiddle with my email.
I try to figure out where I exercised Free Will in my day to day life.
I like to think that I'm an independent blind man. But if I am, I can't
find out just where that is.
So, before I begin going in circles, I will go, of my own free will, and
grab those little chocolate doughnuts I stuck in the freezer.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/10/14, Pam Mathers <lind139@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Carl, I agree with Alice. No one forces anyone to follow God or to
> become a Christian. I'm sure when you were a Christian you became one
> by choice, not because someone told you that you must do it. People
> who become Christians do so by choice, not because they are forced to
> so I don't understand where this idea of dictatorship comes in.
> Christians are not slaves.
> On Jun 10, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
>
>> Oh, come on now Carl, you know better than that, haha...I would think
>> that even in the speaking in tongues, fundamentalist brand of
>> fanatical Christianity that you used to inhabit, the concept of free
>> will was rattling around in there somewhere...and God, as he defines
>> himself, or, if you prefer, the way men have defined/created him does
>> permit dissent...otherwise, you would be forced to believe in Him,
>> and you would not have the choice of which you have availed yourself,
>> not to believe, to decline...
>> That's not a dictator by my definition...a dictator would say,
>> believe in me, follow my ways, or off with your head or some other
>> form of coercion or punishment...and, since in your unbelief, you
>> don't believe in an afterlife or any kind of Deity whatsoever, even
>> that threat of eternal damnation is, for you, an empty one...Alice On
>> Jun 10, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The examples
>>> are all around us, and still we want to worship an absolute
>>> dictator. God Almighty.
>>>
>>> carl jarvis
>>> on Earth be so cruel and hard hearted, if On 6/9/14, Miriam Vieni
>>> <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Williams writes: "It gets worse. One week after revelations of how
>>>> over the span of 35 years, a County Galway home for unwed mothers
>>>> cavalierly disposed of the bodies of nearly 800 babies and toddlers
>>>> on a site that held a septic tank, new reports are leveling a whole
>>>> different set of charges about what happened to the children of
>>>> those Irish homes."
>>>>
>>>> (photo: AdrianNunez/Shutterstock.com)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Catholic Irish Babies Scandal: It Gets Much Worse By Mary
>>>> Elizabeth Williams, Salon
>>>> 09 June 14
>>>>
>>>> New revelations about unauthorized vaccine trials
>>>>
>>>> It gets worse. One week after revelations of how over the span of
>>>> 35 years, a County Galway home for unwed mothers cavalierly
>>>> disposed of the bodies of nearly 800 babies and toddlers on a site
>>>> that held a septic tank, new reports are leveling a whole different
>>>> set of charges about what happened to the children of those Irish
>>>> homes.
>>>> In harrowing new information revealed this weekend, the Daily Mail
>>>> has uncovered medical records that suggest 2,051 children across
>>>> several Irish care homes were given a diphtheria vaccine from
>>>> pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome in a suspected illegal
>>>> drug trial that ran from 1930 to 1936. As the Mail reports,
>>>> "Michael Dwyer, of Cork University's School of History, found the
>>>> child vaccination data by trawling through tens of thousands of
>>>> medical journal articles and archive files. He discovered that the
>>>> trials were carried out before the vaccine was made available for
>>>> commercial use in the UK." There is no evidence yet - and there may
>>>> never be
>>>> - that any family consent was ever offered, or about how many
>>>> children had adverse effects or died as a result of the
>>>> vaccinations. Dwyer told the Mail, "The fact that no record of
>>>> these trials can be found in the files relating to the Department
>>>> of Local Government and Public Health, the Municipal Health Reports
>>>> relating to Cork and Dublin, or the Wellcome Archives in London,
>>>> suggests that vaccine trials would not have been acceptable to
>>>> government, municipal authorities, or the general public.
>>>> However, the fact that reports of these trials were published in
>>>> the most prestigious medical journals suggests that this type of
>>>> human experimentation was largely accepted by medical practitioners
>>>> and facilitated by authorities in charge of children's residential
>>>> institutions." In a related story, GSK - formerly Wellcome -
>>>> revealed Monday on Newstalk Radio that 298 children in 10 different
>>>> care homes were involved in medical trials in the '60s and '70s
>>>> that left "80 children ill after they were accidentally
>>>> administered a vaccine intended for cattle."
>>>> Irish Minister of State for Training and Skills Ciaran Cannon has
>>>> called for a public inquiry into the treatment of the children and
>>>> their deaths.
>>>> The
>>>> archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has also called for an
>>>> investigation, adding that it should be free of Catholic Church
>>>> interference. "We have to look at the whole culture of mother and
>>>> baby homes; they're talking about medical experiments there," he
>>>> told RTE Radio this weekend. "They're very complicated and very
>>>> sensitive issues, but the only way we will come out of this
>>>> particular period of our history is when the truth comes out." And
>>>> a spokesman for GSK said the latest revelations, "if true, are
>>>> clearly very distressing."
>>>> This is not even the first time information on these kinds of
>>>> vaccine trials has come to light. In 2010, the Irish Independent
>>>> uncovered how children born in the homes were subjected to a single
>>>> "four-in-one" vaccine trial without their mothers' permission. The
>>>> children often didn't even know what they'd been subjected to until
>>>> well into adulthood. Appallingly, Ireland had no laws regarding
>>>> medical testing on humans until 1987. Mari Steed, who was born at
>>>> the Bessborough home in the '60s, told the Sunday Independent, "We
>>>> were used as human guinea pigs."
>>>> What Ireland is only now beginning to fully investigate and
>>>> understand is a story involving potentially thousands of children
>>>> who were almost certainly neglected and mistreated, and whose
>>>> deaths were addressed as a mere trash disposal issue. It is now
>>>> believed a total of upward of 4,000 children were similarly
>>>> disposed of in other homes across the country. It's a story of
>>>> untold even higher numbers of children who were unwitting subjects
>>>> in a vaccine test that further refused to see them as human beings,
>>>> capable of fear and pain. And an interesting insight into why so
>>>> many children may have been so casually treated and tossed away was
>>>> revealed in a recent feature on the scandal in the Independent.
>>>> Babies born to unwed mothers - and this, let it be noted, would
>>>> have included mothers who were raped - "were denied baptism and, if
>>>> they died from the illness and disease rife in such facilities,
>>>> also denied a Christian burial." In other words, the Catholic
>>>> institutions that these women and their children were forced to
>>>> turn to as their only refuge viciously turned their backs on them -
>>>> treating them, quite literally, as garbage. This is abuse of the
>>>> highest order. Abuse in life, abuse in death. Carried out by
>>>> religious orders so warped, so perverted in their utter lack of
>>>> mercy that they participated in the suffering of an unfathomable
>>>> number of babies and children. This is what the Catholic Church of
>>>> Ireland is capable of, when it is given free rein over the bodies
>>>> of its most vulnerable members. And an official inquiry hasn't even
>>>> begun. As Michael Dwyer told the Mail this weekend, "What I have
>>>> found is just the tip of a very large and submerged iceberg."
>>>>
>>>> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference
>>>> not valid.
>>>>
>>>> (photo: AdrianNunez/Shutterstock.com)
>>>> http://www.salon.com/2014/06/09/the_catholic_irish_babies_scandal_i
>>>> t_gets_mu
>>>> ch_worse/http://www.salon.com/2014/06/09/the_catholic_irish_babies_
>>>> scandal_i
>>>> t_gets_much_worse/
>>>> The Catholic Irish Babies Scandal: It Gets Much Worse By Mary
>>>> Elizabeth Williams, Salon
>>>> 09 June 14
>>>> New revelations about unauthorized vaccine trials t gets worse. One
>>>> week after revelations of how over the span of 35 years, a County
>>>> Galway home for unwed mothers cavalierly disposed of the bodies of
>>>> nearly 800 babies and toddlers on a site that held a septic tank,
>>>> new reports are leveling a whole different set of charges about
>>>> what happened to the children of those Irish homes.
>>>> In harrowing new information revealed this weekend, the Daily Mail
>>>> has uncovered medical records that suggest 2,051 children across
>>>> several Irish care homes were given a diphtheria vaccine from
>>>> pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome in a suspected illegal
>>>> drug trial that ran from 1930 to 1936. As the Mail reports,
>>>> "Michael Dwyer, of Cork University's School of History, found the
>>>> child vaccination data by trawling through tens of thousands of
>>>> medical journal articles and archive files. He discovered that the
>>>> trials were carried out before the vaccine was made available for
>>>> commercial use in the UK." There is no evidence yet - and there may
>>>> never be
>>>> - that any family consent was ever offered, or about how many
>>>> children had adverse effects or died as a result of the
>>>> vaccinations. Dwyer told the Mail, "The fact that no record of
>>>> these trials can be found in the files relating to the Department
>>>> of Local Government and Public Health, the Municipal Health Reports
>>>> relating to Cork and Dublin, or the Wellcome Archives in London,
>>>> suggests that vaccine trials would not have been acceptable to
>>>> government, municipal authorities, or the general public.
>>>> However, the fact that reports of these trials were published in
>>>> the most prestigious medical journals suggests that this type of
>>>> human experimentation was largely accepted by medical practitioners
>>>> and facilitated by authorities in charge of children's residential
>>>> institutions." In a related story, GSK - formerly Wellcome -
>>>> revealed Monday on Newstalk Radio that 298 children in 10 different
>>>> care homes were involved in medical trials in the '60s and '70s
>>>> that left "80 children ill after they were accidentally
>>>> administered a vaccine intended for cattle."
>>>> Irish Minister of State for Training and Skills Ciaran Cannon has
>>>> called for a public inquiry into the treatment of the children and
>>>> their deaths.
>>>> The
>>>> archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has also called for an
>>>> investigation, adding that it should be free of Catholic Church
>>>> interference. "We have to look at the whole culture of mother and
>>>> baby homes; they're talking about medical experiments there," he
>>>> told RTE Radio this weekend. "They're very complicated and very
>>>> sensitive issues, but the only way we will come out of this
>>>> particular period of our history is when the truth comes out." And
>>>> a spokesman for GSK said the latest revelations, "if true, are
>>>> clearly very distressing."
>>>> This is not even the first time information on these kinds of
>>>> vaccine trials has come to light. In 2010, the Irish Independent
>>>> uncovered how children born in the homes were subjected to a single
>>>> "four-in-one" vaccine trial without their mothers' permission. The
>>>> children often didn't even know what they'd been subjected to until
>>>> well into adulthood. Appallingly, Ireland had no laws regarding
>>>> medical testing on humans until 1987. Mari Steed, who was born at
>>>> the Bessborough home in the '60s, told the Sunday Independent, "We
>>>> were used as human guinea pigs."
>>>> What Ireland is only now beginning to fully investigate and
>>>> understand is a story involving potentially thousands of children
>>>> who were almost certainly neglected and mistreated, and whose
>>>> deaths were addressed as a mere trash disposal issue. It is now
>>>> believed a total of upward of 4,000 children were similarly
>>>> disposed of in other homes across the country. It's a story of
>>>> untold even higher numbers of children who were unwitting subjects
>>>> in a vaccine test that further refused to see them as human beings,
>>>> capable of fear and pain. And an interesting insight into why so
>>>> many children may have been so casually treated and tossed away was
>>>> revealed in a recent feature on the scandal in the Independent.
>>>> Babies born to unwed mothers - and this, let it be noted, would
>>>> have included mothers who were raped - "were denied baptism and, if
>>>> they died from the illness and disease rife in such facilities,
>>>> also denied a Christian burial." In other words, the Catholic
>>>> institutions that these women and their children were forced to
>>>> turn to as their only refuge viciously turned their backs on them -
>>>> treating them, quite literally, as garbage. This is abuse of the
>>>> highest order. Abuse in life, abuse in death. Carried out by
>>>> religious orders so warped, so perverted in their utter lack of
>>>> mercy that they participated in the suffering of an unfathomable
>>>> number of babies and children. This is what the Catholic Church of
>>>> Ireland is capable of, when it is given free rein over the bodies
>>>> of its most vulnerable members. And an official inquiry hasn't even
>>>> begun. As Michael Dwyer told the Mail this weekend, "What I have
>>>> found is just the tip of a very large and submerged iceberg."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
>
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
rabbi charged stealing from disabled kids
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:40:45 -0400
Subject: Re: rabbi charged stealing disabled kids
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Carl,
I had very similar thoughts and reactions when I read the article...
Sarcasm, Sheldon?
Maybe...but as with much sarcasm, it reflects the, or at least one,
truth...not saying whether that truth is good, bad , or indifferent, not
hear, anyhow...
Alice
On Jun 10, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe and All Believers in the American Way.
>
> Was it Morgan, or Hill, or someone else who said something to the
> effect that if you're going to steal, don't rob the train, take the
> whole railroad.
> The sin of these Rabbis was their small mindedness. They did the
> American thing, steal from the poor in order to live the "Chosen"
> life, but they failed to go the distance. They should have taken more
> notice of how the "big boys" do it on Wall Street. While they are
> headed off to pay the price for their petty theft, the big time crooks
> are really living that good life that the Rabbis longed for. And
> there are so many great examples of unfettered greed to draw from.
> Why, just this morning I learned that the student loan debt is over a
> trillion dollars. Larger than all credit card debt. Now there are
> some crooks to be proud of! Stealing the future from our children,
> right out from under our noses. And what about the fellows who have
> cleverly figured out how to steal the very Souls from our poor Black
> and Latino citizens by building private "holding pens" in order to
> squeeze some really cheap labor, and even handing us taxpayers the
> bill. And then there's the squeeze on our elders, and the really big
> rollers who play war games with our children and our tax dollars.
> Yup, those Rabbis were pretty dumb, and they deserve what they get.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
> On 6/10/14, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Rabbi charged with stealing $12.4 million from New York disabled kids |
>> Reuters
>>
>> (Reuters) - A New York rabbi and three others were indicted for stealing
>> over $12.4 million in public aid for disabled pre-schoolers and using it to
>> spruce
>>
>> up their homes, get catering discounts and fund a relative's cosmetics
>> business, authorities said on Tuesday.
>>
>>
>>
>> The four men, who had ties to one of the city's largest providers of special
>> education services for disabled pre-schoolers, were due in court on Tuesday
>>
>> on criminal charges in a 42-count indictment, including grand larceny,
>> identity theft, and falsifying business records, Queens District Attorney
>> Richard
>>
>> Brown said in a statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.
>>
>>
>>
>> They are accused of stealing money meant to benefit the Island Child
>> Development Center in Queens, a non-profit special education provider for
>> Orthodox
>>
>> Jewish children aged 3 to 5.
>>
>>
>>
>> "It is disheartening to see a betrayal of the magnitude alleged in this
>> indictment," Brown said in a statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rabbi Samuel Hiller, who is the center's assistant director, and Roy
>> Hoffman, the center's independent auditor, were accused of using the money
>> to fix up
>>
>> their homes. Hoffman spent $300,000 for a house redesign and diverted
>> $15,000 to his wife's make-up business. Hiller spent $30,000 on home
>> plumbing work,
>>
>> the prosecutor said.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hiller also was accused of diverting $8 million to various unrelated
>> religious schools and camps, including $3 million to B'nos Bais Yaakov
>> Academy, a private
>>
>> all-girls school where he is principal.
>>
>>
>>
>> The New York State Comptroller's Office said they uncovered the fraud when
>> the center's former executive director, Ira Kurman, ran off with his books
>> and
>>
>> records just before a scheduled routine audit meeting in the summer of
>> 2012.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the indictment, Kurman was accused of making more than $143,000 in loans
>> to community members, including a caterer in exchange for discounts for his
>>
>> daughter's wedding and his son's Bar Mitzvah.
>>
>>
>>
>> A fourth man, Daniel Laniado, described as an investor in the center, was
>> accused of using check cashing locations to liquidate more than $1 million
>> of
>>
>> checks meant to benefit the center.
>>
>>
>>
>> The center received roughly $27 million in state funding between 2005 and
>> 2012.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition to the criminal charges, the District Attorney's Office sought
>> forfeiture of over $11 million, of which $1 million has already been
>> repaid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Attorneys for the defendants did not immediately respond to requests for
>> comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> (Editing by Barbara Goldberg; editing by Andrew Hay)
>>
>> FILED UNDER:
>>
>> U.S.
>>
>>
>>
>> Source:
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/13/us-usa-disabled-new-york-idUSBREA4C0NI20140513
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
From: Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:40:45 -0400
Subject: Re: rabbi charged stealing disabled kids
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Carl,
I had very similar thoughts and reactions when I read the article...
Sarcasm, Sheldon?
Maybe...but as with much sarcasm, it reflects the, or at least one,
truth...not saying whether that truth is good, bad , or indifferent, not
hear, anyhow...
Alice
On Jun 10, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe and All Believers in the American Way.
>
> Was it Morgan, or Hill, or someone else who said something to the
> effect that if you're going to steal, don't rob the train, take the
> whole railroad.
> The sin of these Rabbis was their small mindedness. They did the
> American thing, steal from the poor in order to live the "Chosen"
> life, but they failed to go the distance. They should have taken more
> notice of how the "big boys" do it on Wall Street. While they are
> headed off to pay the price for their petty theft, the big time crooks
> are really living that good life that the Rabbis longed for. And
> there are so many great examples of unfettered greed to draw from.
> Why, just this morning I learned that the student loan debt is over a
> trillion dollars. Larger than all credit card debt. Now there are
> some crooks to be proud of! Stealing the future from our children,
> right out from under our noses. And what about the fellows who have
> cleverly figured out how to steal the very Souls from our poor Black
> and Latino citizens by building private "holding pens" in order to
> squeeze some really cheap labor, and even handing us taxpayers the
> bill. And then there's the squeeze on our elders, and the really big
> rollers who play war games with our children and our tax dollars.
> Yup, those Rabbis were pretty dumb, and they deserve what they get.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
> On 6/10/14, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Rabbi charged with stealing $12.4 million from New York disabled kids |
>> Reuters
>>
>> (Reuters) - A New York rabbi and three others were indicted for stealing
>> over $12.4 million in public aid for disabled pre-schoolers and using it to
>> spruce
>>
>> up their homes, get catering discounts and fund a relative's cosmetics
>> business, authorities said on Tuesday.
>>
>>
>>
>> The four men, who had ties to one of the city's largest providers of special
>> education services for disabled pre-schoolers, were due in court on Tuesday
>>
>> on criminal charges in a 42-count indictment, including grand larceny,
>> identity theft, and falsifying business records, Queens District Attorney
>> Richard
>>
>> Brown said in a statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.
>>
>>
>>
>> They are accused of stealing money meant to benefit the Island Child
>> Development Center in Queens, a non-profit special education provider for
>> Orthodox
>>
>> Jewish children aged 3 to 5.
>>
>>
>>
>> "It is disheartening to see a betrayal of the magnitude alleged in this
>> indictment," Brown said in a statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rabbi Samuel Hiller, who is the center's assistant director, and Roy
>> Hoffman, the center's independent auditor, were accused of using the money
>> to fix up
>>
>> their homes. Hoffman spent $300,000 for a house redesign and diverted
>> $15,000 to his wife's make-up business. Hiller spent $30,000 on home
>> plumbing work,
>>
>> the prosecutor said.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hiller also was accused of diverting $8 million to various unrelated
>> religious schools and camps, including $3 million to B'nos Bais Yaakov
>> Academy, a private
>>
>> all-girls school where he is principal.
>>
>>
>>
>> The New York State Comptroller's Office said they uncovered the fraud when
>> the center's former executive director, Ira Kurman, ran off with his books
>> and
>>
>> records just before a scheduled routine audit meeting in the summer of
>> 2012.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the indictment, Kurman was accused of making more than $143,000 in loans
>> to community members, including a caterer in exchange for discounts for his
>>
>> daughter's wedding and his son's Bar Mitzvah.
>>
>>
>>
>> A fourth man, Daniel Laniado, described as an investor in the center, was
>> accused of using check cashing locations to liquidate more than $1 million
>> of
>>
>> checks meant to benefit the center.
>>
>>
>>
>> The center received roughly $27 million in state funding between 2005 and
>> 2012.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition to the criminal charges, the District Attorney's Office sought
>> forfeiture of over $11 million, of which $1 million has already been
>> repaid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Attorneys for the defendants did not immediately respond to requests for
>> comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> (Editing by Barbara Goldberg; editing by Andrew Hay)
>>
>> FILED UNDER:
>>
>> U.S.
>>
>>
>>
>> Source:
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/13/us-usa-disabled-new-york-idUSBREA4C0NI20140513
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)