Dear Obama, Reid and Pelosi,

I’ve been thinking about writing y’all for a couple of months now.  Because I thought the Democrats won the Presidency and control of Congress last November.  But since then, I’ve not seen much evidence of that.  All that talk in November hasn’t been followed by much walk.

And seeing as how the health care bill squeaked by the House by just a few votes, it seems to me there’s a lack of leadership.  Or is it cajones?  After all, with a single exception, those Republicans voted in lock step.  But 39 Democrats voted with them, and one of those “dogs” was the representative from my district.  WTF was that all about?

As an anarchist, I really don’t care what the heck happens.  But seeing y’all flop around like a fish out of water, instead of acting like the Great White sharks you should be, does offend my sense of…propriety. Y’all shouldn’t be acting like beggars.  Or wussies.

Now I know what y’all are thinking: what the heck does an aging anarchist think he has to pass along to the big fish like you?  A fair question.  While it is true I’ve never been in the big ocean of national politics, that doesn’t mean I’m completely bereft of any leadership experience.

Admittedly, I was in a very small pond – a college campus of 1,000.  But in that pond I was a Great White and devoured anyone in my way.

It’s been said that war is the extension of politics by other means.  A corollary to that is that politics is a form of war.  And in war, there is no substitute for victory….by any means necessary.  Capice?

I’ll relate just two “war stories” from my college days. They illustrate the mindset you need to achieve a “take no prisoners” victory.  Because if you don’t kick some ass soon, the rank and file troops will be demoralized and go home.  And the bad guys will win the next election.  Which they’d deserve to.  It is not about how you play the game; losers say that.  Winning is everything;  otherwise, why even be in the game?

So read on and take notes….

In the Spring of ’72, my college roommate and about two dozen other black students walked into the Student Union, ordered everyone out and then locked themselves in.  When I heard about it, I was elated – a gen-you-wine radical action! Yee-ha!

Ostensibly, the occupation was because they wanted a Student Union employee who repeatedly made racist remarks to be transferred to a job where he’d not have contact with students.  Despite repeated complaints, nothing had been done.  Time for some direct action.  And by the way, increasing the number of black students, increasing financial aid for them, hiring some black faculty, and setting up a black studies program sure would be nice.  What do you say?

Now you’d think that a campus overflowing with Volvo liberals in the faculty and administration would have said: “You’re absolutely right! How can a progressive campus not have these things? We’re on it!”

But noooooo….  Seems even Volvo liberals can get a bit territorial.  I guess it’s one thing to be charitable to make partial amends for a good two hundred years of racism, but if the beneficiaries are ungrateful and start getting uppity….

So the administration’s response was the same knee-jerk one we saw at other campuses:  “We’ll be happy to discuss these issues but not while you occupy the Student Union.”  Our heroes were given 24 hours to leave the building or the police would be called to evict them for trespassing, after which they’d all be expelled.  Even I was surprised; but surprise quickly turned to anger, which is a powerful motivator.

The administration’s ultimatum was a typical reaction by those who believe they have the upper hand.  Might makes right.  The question is: how do you determine who has the greater power?  Proper perspective is critical.  Otherwise, your ass is the one whupped, not the other guy’s.  And you certainly don’t want that embarrassment.

The administration completely misjudged who had the power that could be used, and that error provided a strategic opening which I exploited.  Tactically, they had all the advantages.  But they failed to think strategically.

I recognized that bringing in the police was a scare tactic, a bluff they could not follow through on.  Also, they had set a deadline; that deadline, designed to pressure our heroes, could be used to reverse the pressure.  So, I set about employing my own scare tactic and using that deadline as pressure against them.

I advised my roommate to wait a few hours and then advise the administration that during those hours I had rounded up 40 sympathizers prepared to defend their fellow students.  (I think it was actually only about a dozen, but that‘s the “fog of war.”)  If the police arrived, they would have to fight their way through us before they entered the Student Union.

There’d only be a few of us outside at any one time, in shifts throughout the night.  If the police arrived, spotters would see them and we’d get the rest there quickly….after calling the TV and news media to come film and photograph a bloody campus riot.  But of course that wasn’t the real message.

The real message: yes, we’d certainly lose that battle and all be expelled.  But the college would lose how many millions in donations from the statewide publicity?  We all knew the college was on shaky financial ground. I was offering a potential death sentence for the college.  Did they want to take me up on that?

Now even though I was just a sophomore, the college administration was aware of me.  At the end of my freshman year, I had organized opposition to an announcement that the college’s name would be changed the next year.  And I looked pretty dangerous because of my “big hair.” (But the women loved it!)

Since the administration’s interaction with me had been limited, they could not be sure of what I was willing to do.  I cultivated an image that suggested SDS, not Quaker.  At the start of my sophomore year, I had helped resurrect the campus newspaper and wrote a column in the editorial section called “Gadfly.”  My writing style was intentionally inflammatory but those were the days of  “burn, baby, burn” and I was popular.

In a situation with many unknowns, “rational” persons often act conservatively.  That’s what I was counting on the administration to do; after all, all these folks had Ph.D.s and so were very rational.  I was only 20 and very impassioned, so they could not assume I’d act rationally.  I was, in fact, engaging in cold calculation while appearing, for tactical effect, to be irrational and unpredictable.

So I wasn’t too surprised when my roommate and the other black students walked out of the Student Union the next day just before the deadline expired.  The administration could not roll the dice on a “riot”; they had folded and agreed to every one of the…”requests.”   (I thought they’d split the difference, so complete victory was a surprise.)  As a face-saving gesture for the administration, it was agreed that they, not the students, would announce the “new initiatives” and there’d be a week’s delay so it would not be too blatant that the administration had caved.  No disciplinary action was taken against any student.  It was as if the incident never happened.

A few weeks later, with my role in the incident known campus wide, I won a landslide victory to a Student Government executive officer position.  As did my roommate.  And also my next year’s roommate.  The three of us now held half of the executive officer positions on the powerful Executive Committee.  Our allies had run as dormitory representatives and I appeared in their dorms to endorse them.  Almost all of them won.

The radicals now had a majority in the Student Government.  And I was their leader.  I did not feign to be a statesman, but instead took the role of Robespierre: there would be (political) blood!  (A friend of mine had the role of “good cop.”)

There was one small problem.  It appeared the new SG members would not take office until next school year.  I was already a dormitory representative, so I was already in the SG as that.  Also, my next year’s roommate was the sitting Chairman of the SG.  He had been appointed to fill that vacancy earlier in the Spring and had now been elected to the position for next year. (He had been appointed to neutralize his vote since the Chairman doesn’t vote except to break ties;  but I was elected as his replacement, probably thanks to my “Gadfly” notoriety.)

If you’re going to be in the game, you need to know the rules.  I was very familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order.  I now decided to closely read the SG Constitution to see how I might use it to my advantage.

And guess what? I found nothing there about when newly elected officers are seated.  I just assumed it was there.  Then, I checked the by-laws; they were also silent.  Ka-ching!  Knowledge is power….

I met with the Chairman to plan a procedural coup.  When the election results were brought to the SG the week after the election for perfunctory ratification, the Chairman made sure it was the first agenda item.  All of my allies who had been elected were at the meeting. That raised no suspicion; the others assumed they just wanted to see the ratification and observe how SG worked.

There was a unanimous vote to ratify the results. I immediately rose on a point of order: “Mr. Chairman, since the election results have been ratified, the new officers and representatives are entitled to be seated immediately.”  Defeated representatives who did not share my agenda looked at me with incredulity.  One rose and matter-of-factly advised me that the new SG is not seated until the next school year. The trap was closing….

Prepared, I walked over to him with the Constitution and by-laws and asked him to read to us from either document where it said what he had just told me.  After reviewing both documents, he conceded they were silent on that point.  He then said that seating the new SG in the next school year was the tradition.

I enjoy theater, so I decided to savor the moment since I was “on stage.”  I slowly walked away from him to the center of the room, turned to face everyone, and said in a measured, firm tone: “the election was about trashing traditions that hold back progress; it was about creating new traditions to further the mandate the students gave the new SG, and this is the first tradition we’re changing because lame ducks have no right to one more second of power. You lost, we won.”  My allies cheered.

I turned to the Chairman and asked for a ruling.  He played along and “considered it” for about a minute, stroking his goatee for effect, and then ruled: the new SG would be seated immediately. There was some pandemonium but after it quieted down one of the conservatives jumped up and appealed the Chairman’s ruling.  This meant the SG would vote to uphold or reverse his ruling.

Of course, I expected the appeal and was prepared.  I rose on a point of order: “Mr. Chairman, as we all know, until the SG votes to reverse the ruling, it stands.  Since there has been no vote to reverse it, the ruling is still in effect. That means the new SG will vote on the ruling, not the old SG.”  Dead silence as what I said sank in.  I waited about 10 seconds for effect and then asked: “Is there any point in proceeding with a vote on the appeal?”

After a few seconds, one or two of the defeated SG members got up and left the room. They were followed by all the other defeated members. The new members took their seats.  We were now in control.  And for the next two years, I was the Great White in that sea.  Resistance was futile.

At the end of my junior year, I faced a dilemma: SG President or Editor of the newspaper? Both were elective offices, so I had to choose one.  I decided I’d be more effective controlling the newspaper because it was widely read but few students attended SG meetings.  And, I could “advise” the SG from the Editor’s office.  One of my friends ran for SG and everyone knew that a vote for him was a vote for me.  (By that time, I was also Editor of the Editorials section and principal editorial writer.  Guess who the student newspaper endorsed?)

No one would challenge me for the Editor’s position but I did not want anyone saying I held the office by default.  I “requested” the SG to allow a “yes” or “no” vote so I would have legitimacy.  And of course they indulged me.  The election results surprised even me:  I received more “yes” votes than the total number of votes cast in the Presidential election for those two candidates.

So now I was unofficially the SG President too.  You can imagine my senior year: I was the singular, ruling philosopher-king.  Nothing happened unless I approved it.  The power of one….

So here’s my advice to y‘all:

1.  Ms. Pelosi needs to sit down with the 39 “dogs” who abandoned her and advise them that if they ever do that again, then they can expect, and will receive, no favors from her.  Their bills will be buried. Their projects will not be funded.  No favors granted.  Nothing.  You are with the Speaker or you are not, and if you are not…. I can’t believe this discussion didn’t take place before the vote.  If it did, then those 39 “dogs” need to be euthanized, politically speaking.

2. Mr. Reid needs to sit the Senate Republican leaders down and remind them that when they were in control a few years back, and felt the Democrats were being “obstructionist” on judicial confirmations, they threatened a rules change (which only needs a majority vote) to disallow a filibuster if the Democrats did not allow a straight “up or down” vote.  Since the Republicans unsheathed that sword, Mr. Reid should tell the Republicans that he will use it to decapitate them if they suddenly take a liking to a filibuster on any bill.  All bills shall have a straight “up or down” vote.  The filibuster is not in the Constitution and is little more than an anachronistic, anti-democratic example of self-indulgence by narcissistic Senators that belongs in the dustbin of history.  (That last sentence is an example of my speaking style back then.)

3.  Thankfully, Mr. President, you appear to have junked that “bi-partisanship” talk and should never speak of it again. The Republicans are not bi-partisan; nor has that been the tradition for most of this country’s history.  The Democrats won the election at all three levels, and to the victor go the spoils. As  President, you also have a lot of favors you can dispense. None of them should go to any Republican unless there is a favor in return.

4. Mr. President, I know you are intelligent.  Keep it in the Oval Office, OK? The people do not respond to analysis.  Take a cue from the Republicans.  They seek to invoke fear and all sorts of negative emotions.  What’s good for the Republican goose is good for the Democratic gander.  Speak on an emotional level, but on a positive one.  Just like during the campaign.

I was (and still am) an excellent public speaker.  My technique then was about 1/3 facts and 2/3 emotions.  I got the desired results.  And given the economy, I’d say emotions are pretty high.  Take advantage of that.

Time to play political ball…hardball!.  Yes, you can!  You have just one goal: victory…by any means necessary.

Don’t get the idea from the title of this post that I’ve changed my politics, because you’d be very wrong.  Since Veteran’s Day is this week, I decided this is an appropriate opportunity to suggest that the country truly honor veterans in a way that goes beyond the tokenism of parades, speeches, etc.

And that would be for the public, especially the pathetic politicians, to recognize that the government shouldn’t be sending soldiers into harm’s way in the willy nilly way it has been doing for over 50 years .  Common sense suggests before asking soldiers to sacrifice life, limb and/or sanity, there is no shadow of a doubt that it is absolutely necessary.

But politics is not about common sense.  And war is the extension of politics by other means.  And politics is all about posturing.

Since the posturing politicians making the decisions are unlikely to have any of their own children in the military, is it any wonder the decision is often for war?  What do you think the decision would be if there was a law that every military age son and daughter of every Congressional representative supporting war would be sent to the front lines? Exactly….

Since 1945, when politicians of both parties anointed this country as the world’s policeman, there has been little consideration for the military.  The Chicken Little politicians have regularly sent the military into situations where there was no real threat to country’s survival.

Let’s begin with the most recent “Big Three.”  Viet Nam fell and the “best and brightest” were proved to be morons when the rest of the Southeast Asian dominoes did not fall.  Iraq was invaded and no  WMDs were found, so remember that the next time a President presents a “slam dunk” case for another military intervention.  As for Afghanistan, even noted conservative George Will says it’s time to get the heck out.

I don’t know how many billions have gone done the sinkholes of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Nor do I want to know.  I’ll leave it to others to think about how those billions could have been used in this country.  (Or, not used… producing a lower national debt, which just might help the economy.)

Then, there’s way too many minor interventions to detail.  But Bosnia is a good example of needless meddling.  That was nothing more than a “feel good” folly.  I don’t care who ethnically cleanses whom; it is no threat to this country.  (Interestingly, when it was ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, this country’s attitude was that it was a problem to be solved by Africa.  So why was not Bosnia a problem to be solved by Europe?)

When I say “America First” it is a reference to the isolationist America First Committee which opposed U. S. involvement in World War II.  Both Gerald Ford and John F. Kennedy supported the America First Committee.

I am a staunch isolationist.  When the President goes on TV to explain why this country’s soldiers need to be sent to BFE  “in the national interest”, we need to say:  “You lie!”  But, the public keeps falling for the deceit, so President after President keeps doing it and the cowardly Congress keeps kow towing.  Then, when the truth sheds light on the situation, the scurrying Congressional cockroaches pull a Kerry:  “I was against it before I was for it.” Too little, too late.

An attitude adjustment is long overdue.  America First! Bring all the troops home now and keep all the foreign aid bribes in America too.

Regular readers know that I believe “facts” are of little consequence in the substantial issues of life.  Facts are useful for the mundane decisions, such as which TV, car, or computer to buy.  Among the ones on sale, of course.

But when it comes to substantial issues, it’s all about values.  And those are not susceptible to facts.  Values cannot be proved or disproved based on “facts.”  Our values come from many sources, but not from facts.  Because if facts are the basis of values, then we would all have the same values.

Does anyone debate that Washington, D.C. is the nation’s capital? That is a “fact.”  No debate.

But there is plenty of debate on, say, abortion.  The “facts” are irrelevant to this issue even if there is agreement on the facts.  The debate is not about the facts.  It is about values, which are often based on our life experiences.

Similarly, I place little value on voting.  Especially (near) universal suffrage.  Since I don’t accept the legitimacy of any form of government, my views on the problems with universal suffrage are purely academic. Intellectual sport, if you will.

Those waiting for the reinvigoration of government are… waiting for Godot.
But for those enamored with “facts” I offer the following facts regarding voting:

1) A Rasmussen Reports poll this year reflects that 42% believe we’d be better off selecting  Congressional representatives by random selection from phone books.  (Quibble: they should have used something more “inclusive” than a phone book;  many folks, including me, do not have a land line or are unlisted.)

I find that percentage quite encouraging.  It reflects the public’s disgust with the political system.  A disgust that I believe has been building since the 1960’s.

I believe the whole sordid Viet Nam debacle, where over 50,000 Americans died for absolutely nothing because the “best and brightest” could not understand what college students could, began a disaffection with government.  Today, it is not just college students who believe the government is full of it.  Folks from all walks of life do not trust the government to be able to recognize, much less do, the right thing.

And that disgust with government is how folks come around to my point of view.  The first step is disgust.  Followed by despair.  Eventually, enough folks decide to ignore government.

At that point, government is effectively on life support.  No revolutions, no bomb throwing.  Government just withers away.  (Yes, Lenin was a communist, not an anarchist; but I still like his phrase.)

(Sidebar: if you check out that link to Rasmussen Reports, you’ll find another poll where 57% of voters want to replace the entire Congress and start all over again.  So why do the same folks keep getting re-elected over and over again?  Well, most persons polled believe that elections are ‘rigged.”  In a way, they are: you have to raise lots of cash to get elected and that’s not easy for a newcomer.  Hence, the phone book approach…)

But it’s just not me who thinks voting is over rated.  The Constitution was written on that premise.

2)  The framers of the federal Constitution did not trust the common folks enough to allow them to vote on anything except the House of Representatives.  Until the Constitution was amended (17th Amendment) to allow for their direct election,  Senators were appointed by each state’s legislature.

3) And of course, even today the President is not directly elected.  The Constitution’s framers did not want the people to directly elect the President either.  That task was entrusted to “electors.”

You may know that the term “electoral college” is not in the Constitution.  Only the word “electors” is in the Constitution.  And you may also know the Constitution is otherwise completely silent on just how those “electors” are chosen, other than to give each State’s legislature the power to decide.  And in the early days of this country, it was certainly not by a vote of the unwashed masses.

4) At the birth of this country, the masses could not vote.  Voting was for a very elite group.  And that system produced who? Oh, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln to name a few.  That is what elitism gets you.

Then, along comes the infamous idea to allow more folks to vote.  It would be oh-so-democratic.  But this country is not named the People’s Democracy of the United States of America.  (Although we sure are bordering on it, aren’t we comrades?)

When women finally received the vote less than 100 years ago, the democratization of voting was essentially complete.  I assume the ability of the dead to vote in some jurisdictions was granted before women received that privilege.  (Of course, dead women couldn’t vote until the amendment passed.)

5) And what has voting by the masses produced?  Oh…Nixon, Carter, and Dubya.  Exhibits A, B and C in the slam dunk case against voting.

What I find amazing about the Rasmussen Reports poll is that only 42% of respondents think picking Congressional representatives randomly is better than voting for them.  I expect that percentage to increase over time.  And what do you think will happen as a majority of folks come to distrust the government?  A lot of good things, in my opinion.

You say you want a more effective government?  Voting isn’t the answer.

Give me that phone book!  And the new U.S. Senator from Florida is…Clem Kadiddlehopper!  He’d be no worse than the bozos now running that circus we call Congress.

“The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable…” – H.L. Mencken

I’m the chef of the household.  Because I have much more cooking experience than Susie, there was no debate about this aspect of our life.

She lived with her mom for many years and her mom cooked.  When Susie finally did move to Tallahassee so she‘d not have a 100-mile roundtrip commute, she rented a room from an elderly single woman and didn’t do much cooking then either.

I, on the other hand, have been cooking for myself since I graduated college, where we had a “buffet” meal plan included in the tuition and so I never cooked in college.  Since we had servants in Manila, and they did the cooking, I sure didn’t get any experience there either.  My cooking style therefore reflects a “no nonsense” approach favoring simplicity and a “one pot/pan” method with minimal preparation time.  Still, I’ve managed to develop an adequate repertoire over 35 years.

Another approach I take is not to cook every day.  Usually, I cook on Sunday and that will last us through Thursday.  Sometimes, I’ll cook a second time on Tuesday.  I can do this since there’s just the two of us.

Some folks can’t believe we eat the same thing five days in a row but last I heard the main function of food is to keep you alive so what does it matter? And if tastes good….

I eat ice cream almost every day and think nothing of it!  Life is too short to waste on spending lots of time on cooking.  (I have the same attitude about cleaning, yard work, etc. but those are Susie’s bailiwicks.)

So, what’s on the anarchist menu?  Enquiring minds want to know….

Depends on the season.  In spring and fall, when the weather’s good, I often grill.  Now that’s pretty basic.  Slap some meat on the grill and we’re eating in a few minutes.  Plus, cooking on a gas grill is cheaper than cooking on a stove.

But in winter, indoor cooking is usually the practice.  In that case, a crock pot is often prominent in the kitchen.  I can prepare a meal early Sunday afternoon and let the crock pot do it’s thing all afternoon while I’m surfing the Internet.

One of my favorite crock pot meals is chicken cacciatore, using thighs.  I’ll put a layer of thighs browned in olive oil in the bottom of the crock pot, followed by a layer of mushrooms, onions and sliced tomatoes.  Then cover that with a sauce that includes crushed tomatoes (thicker than puree) blended with prepared spaghetti sauce (I like Classico’s Spicy Tomato and Basil) to which I’ve added my own herbs and spices.  Then, another layer of thighs followed by a layer of that sauce.  A few hours later, Susie’s eating mighty fine!

That crock pot is also used for all sorts of pork and sometimes beef roasts.  These are typically accompanied by mushrooms, onions and whatever frozen veggies are on sale, such as garlic cauliflower or broccolli.  In winter, the crock pot often switches to spaghetti sauce and chili.

With spaghetti sauce, I favor Italian sausage for meat and also seafood.  In the past, it was either clams or shrimp but then I stumbled upon a frozen “seafood mix” which includes octopus, cuttlefish, squid, shrimp and clams or mussels and I like that for “something different.”  I’ll sautee that seafood mix in butter, olive oil and garlic and then add in to the crock pot after the sauce has been simmering a few hours.  As we say in Manila – “masarap.”(Delicious!)

With chili, I like it hot.  Fortunately, I have all sorts of hot sauces and a nice stash of premium Chimayo chile powder which I picked up in the town it is named after when we were in New Mexico.

Susie doesn’t like her chili hot, so I have to add most of the hot sauce and chile power (and often some jalapeno peppers) to mine separately, which dilutes the effect it since it doesn’t simmer into the sauce. I’m thinking that this winter I will make “his and hers” batches since we have two crock pots.  (Plus a “reserve” one that’s still in the box, which I picked up at a real good price at an outlet mall sale.)

When I cook on the stove, it’s typically in a “wok” pan.  This has a small cooking base and then widens out.  This allows a smaller amount of liquid to cover all the food than if the base is also wide.  I often stir fry / simmer something in that wok pan.

Top on the stir fry / simmer list is chicken or pork adobo.  It’s a Filipino standard which uses a mix of vinegar and soy sauce to simmer the meat chunks along with some onions and mushrooms.  Susie enjoys it.  I’ll also use it to stir fry my version of Sichuan beef.

About the only time I use the oven is to roast a boneless pork loin.  I baste this with whatever funky salad dressing I happen to have on hand.  Zesty Italian and Greek are two favorites.  This is accompanied by sweet potatoes zapped in the microwave, which I never owned until receiving one as a wedding present in 1995.

If we’re not eating pasta, then all these meals are accompanied with rice, which I buy in 25-pound bags.  Susie’s eaten so much rice over the last 25 years I’m waiting for her eyes to become slanted just like mine!  

I recently stumbled upon some “Thai Coconut Curry” flavor chicken broth I picked up on sale .  I’m thinking about an opportunity to try it out. This broth may become a favored cooking liquid since I like both curry and coconut.  (Whenever Blue Bell ice cream goes on sale, I try to pick up their Tropical Paradise flavor – coconut ice cream with crushed pineapple, macadamia nuts and coconut sauce.)

I limit home red meat consumption to about once every six weeks.  Even in the Philippines, I didn’t eat much red meat; it was mostly chicken, pork and fish.  My uncle’s convinced that my grandmother (his mother) lived to be over 100 because her diet was mainly fish, vegetables and rice.  That’s a little too confining for me, especially considering the price of fish here compared to the Philippines.  (While we had shrimp in the Philippines, it took a back seat to the Godzilla size prawns we had, which I rarely see here.)

I’m hoping our upcoming trip to Puerto Rico will give me some new cooking ideas.  In Manila, one of my favorite dishes at home was Cuban Rice:  seasoned ground beef surrounding rice which had literally been inverted from a  cup with a fried egg on top of the rice.  Surrounding the ground beef was fried bananas.  Masarap!

I’d never seen this on the menu in a Cuban restaurant, only Picadillo which is similar but without the fried egg or bananas.  I asked the owner of a local Cuban restaurant whether Cuban Rice was a real dish or…  She assured me  it was very Cuban but didn’t think it’d go over with Americans.

My problem with “American” food is that it is often bland.  Food, like life, should be characterized by zest! All it takes is some spices and herbs…and you too will be saying: “masarap!”

How about 1.5 million dollars?  Because that’s what it’ll take to pay the 2009 annual salary of the Boy Scouts‘ CEO.  That’s right, he receives (I cannot use the word “earns”), $1,577,000 for his efforts.  If I’d known there’d be big money leading a paramilitary-looking youth group …

But it’s not just the Boy Scouts’ CEO who’s rolling in the donations of folks willing to contribute to a good cause.  The Museum of Modern Art’s CEO is paid $1.26 million.  And I thought the “arts” crowd was wealthy!

The Wildlife Conservation Society only pays it’s CEO $628,000.  Those folks are animals!  Have they no shame that their CEO is having to live in a tent at a campground?  And show up at MOMA’s fundraisers so he can eat free off the buffet table?

Yes, it’s that time of year again when the United Way comes around asking me to pledge to their campaign. And for folks like me who think a contribution should actually go primarily to programs and services and not administrative costs, there are some resources to guide my decisions.

Such as Charity Navigator’s recently released annual survey of CEO pay at the top 5,500 U.S.-based charities.  This report slices and dices charitable CEO pay in all sorts of ways.  Quite revealing.

If you’re interested in averages, then it’s the Mountain West that brings up the rear with about $127,000.  The leader of the pack is of course the Northeast, with $194,000.  But averages are misleading.  I wish they’d have used the “median” for each region instead.

Another interesting perspective is by the charity’s purpose.  Health charities’ CEOs aren‘t too healthy, with a $161,000 average.  Even Arts/Culture/Humanities pay their CEO a respectable $204,000 average.  They say knowledge is power, but it’s also very green with an average of $263,00 for Education charities’ CEOs.

All these high salaries contribute to high administrative costs.  That’s very important to me.  Because if I’m donating my money, I hold charities to a much higher standard than the private sector.

So of course I’ll not be contributing to the Masonic Homes of California, which has an administrative cost rate of 45%.  Nor to the Association of Firefighters and Paramedics, which manages to spend all of 3% of its $3 million budget on programs and services.  Then there’s the National Breast Cancer Foundation, whose board of four relatives with the same last name is pulling down from $80,000 to $126,000 each. (But then they say that charity begins at home…)

As for the United Way, I have a 33-page booklet which lists each organization’s administrative costs. I can’t believe how some of these charities stay in business.  Donors must be overlooking the administrative cost factor for the “feel good” factor that they’re “helping the unfortunate.”

In my area, for example, Catholic Charities of Northwest Florida has just under 19% administrative cost.  The local Urban League is at 18%.  Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tallahassee is 20.5%.  The Florida Special Olympics is at 23%.

Many health charities are anemic in keeping administrative costs low. Children’s Cancer Assistance Fund is 19%.  Florida Alzheimer’s Foundation is just over 23% and the Autism Society of Florida is just under that.  The Multiple Sclerosis Foundation is 24%. Breast Cancer Relief Foundation is almost 30%!

Conservation groups don’t always conserve your donation.  Administrative cost for the Alaska Conservation Foundation is almost 24%;  it’s 22% for the Clean Water Fund; 23% for Defenders of Wildlife.

But there are a number of charities putting most of your money to use outside the office. Bless the Children, Help the Children and International Relief Teams use over 99% of their funds for services.  As does the Salvadoran American Humanitarian Foundation.  Soles 4 Souls uses over 98% of its funds to provide shoes worldwide.

In the end, the decision is often personal not logical.  When my father was diagnosed with terminal liver cancer, he was able to live out his last few months at home thanks to his local hospice.

We know a number of folks who have benefited from our local hospice.  And we’re all going to die, so if it’s not going to be sudden then Susie and I may very well need hospice one day.  So, for many years now, I’ve always contributed to the local hospice even though it’s administrative rate is about 13.5%.

And that’s where my donation is going this year too.  But next year, I may just donate directly to them and avoid the United Way’s 15% “middle man” administrative cut.  I don’t care about how my employer “looks” in the United Way campaign; getting the most money to services is what’s important.

Speaking of “looks”, the United Way campaign kick off at my agency had a Hawaiian theme.  In keeping with the theme, there were a number of contests.  I won the men’s  “Best Hawaiian Shirt” contest with an authentic shirt I bought at Hilo Hattie’s when we were in Hawaii many years ago.

My prize was a Chick Filet basket with free sandwich and milkshake coupons and numerous logo items, such a pen and keychain with mini-flashlight. My favorite is an insulated lunch tote.  With a small freezer pack in there, I can bring my lunch to work and not need to put it in a refrigerator, which seems to be quite full these days.

]]> http://spencercourt.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/705/feed/ 11 Spencer Court shirt