About this subject, science and religion are on the same page


"Countless studies have found that generosity, both volunteering and charitable donations, benefits young and old physically and psychologically. The benefits of giving are significant, according to studies: lower blood pressure, lower risk of dementia, less anxiety and depression, reduced cardiovascular risk and overall greater happiness." [Terri Yablonsky, from "A giving nature improves health" in today's Chicago Tribune]


Studies corroborate what we believe:

It's  truly more blessed to give than receive.

We're healthier giving;

Our lives more worth living

Whenever the plight of the poor we reprieve.


"Of the 7.15 billion people alive:

  • 2.4 billion live on less than $2 per day.[1]
  • More than 1 billion lack access to clean drinking water.[2]
  • More than 800 million go to bed hungry each day.[2]
  • More than 6 million die each year from preventable diseases.[2]
  • About 1 billion cannot read or write.[2]"



Filed under: health, life in general


Leave a comment
  • I'm not sure it is good for the nerves or blood pressure to worry about the billions one cannot personally control.

  • Hmmm, maybe if the Clinton Foundation, (who has taken in billions and has recently been put on the warning list of perverse charities by Charity Navigator), would pay out more than just 6.5% to charity more of these poor souls could eat.

    Oh, and lets not have the conversation about over population because then we'd all be a bunch of heartless Scrooges. Forward to the destruction of Mother Gaia in the name of 'we just can't help it.'

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I checked Charity Navigator and it says that they are unable to rate the Clinton Foundation because their rating methodology cannot assess its business model.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    In that it has a "business model" seems strange. But then a search of Charity Navigator doesn't turn up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation at all.

    The Clinton Foundation does post its financials, if one wants to fish through them rather than rely on some secondary (and apparently nonresponsive) source.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    And what did you see, Clarice? They were slaughtering the spring lambs?.....

    Come on Aquinas, I know you found out more than that. They were put on Charity Navigators' “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. They're taking in hundreds of millions of dollars and paying out 6.5% to charity, no where near the 75% expected of a good charity. Their using the fund to pay political friends hundreds of thousands of dollars and fly all over the world.

    “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director. -NY post

  • In reply to 4zen:

    As I suggested above, which probably appeared as you were posting, get back to us after studying the linked financials and tax return.

  • In reply to jack:

    Aye, Aye Kapitan...

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I see ALEC is on the "watch list" too.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Okay, so then you see the company the Clintons are in.

    So it should be no wonder how a Americans could see Trump's bombastic assertions as refreshing, our country is being run by two houses of vampires.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    So how is the Trump Foundation doing? Apparently The Donald takes credit for the Eric Trump Foundation.

    Guidestar has a listing for a Donald J. Trump Foundation, but no information behind the tabs.

    There is the Smoking Gun on Trump being the least charitable billionaire on earth. Link in the next post.

    So, it sort of sounds like if some pot is calling the kettle black, Trump is the smoke pit on the Texas BBQ show.

  • In reply to jack:

    Also, it appears from The Smoking Gun that the Donald J. Trump Foundation donated $100,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation. Seems like he doesn't have standing to complain, then.

  • In reply to 4zen:
  • In reply to jack:

    Thanx for the references Jack. I did a little research and it appears Trump's Foundation only had 1.4 million in assets as of 2013 and paid out over $900,000 in cash to various non-for profits that very same year, $1,700,000 the year before. It also appears that most of his charity is given in land, albeit land that cannot be devolved into golf courses or resorts, which goes into the 100's of millions. Not perfect, but not on the 'watch list.' - Crain's NY.

    Still Trump may be considered cheap, but I also don't believe he has near the money he says he has, and according to his financial disclosure most of it was in non liquid assets.

    Hell, after the last 15 years this country could use a cheap President.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    So if he's elected, we'd have Trump change?

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Also, at least from The Smoking Gun, most of it was Vince McMahon's money, not Trump's.
    It you want a cheap President, join AW with Bernie Sanders. Otherwise, don't knock the Clinton Foundation, which, if I read pages 20 and 21 correctly, devote about $200 mil/year to its causes, which is 88% of its total expenses.I don't know where you got your 6.5% number, but the reports reflect about $128 million for health care access.The Trump Foundation obviously doesn't have that kind of money. The best I can find is that Eric Trump thinks he is the latter-day Danny Thomas. I don't think so. Give in response to Marlo directly.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    'The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
    The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.' NY Post 4-26-15

    I'll take another look at the balance sheet.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I looked at those pages and appears to me that money is mostly going to their expenses, but it's not broken down into direct aid. I'll go with the reporting by the Post until further evidence.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Replying to 4zen:

    Page 20 of the report breaks down expenses by "Program Services," "Management/General" and "Fund Raising." That's where I got that 88% went to "Program Services."

    As I frequently have said, don't rely on a secondary source (and certainly a biased one such as the New York Post) when an original source is available. Do you trust any local media source (especially WGN and the Tribune) for your legal news? Take my word for it, you should not.

    There probably is a question how much of the BC&C Foundation $200 million is Saudi money, but as pointed out above, most of the DJT Foundation's money is promotional consideration from Vince McMahon. At least Smoking Gun always posts the documentation, so there is a primary source there.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    It's broken down here.

  • In reply to jack:

    OK, at least that has some analysis based on the documentation.

    I would like to see similar with respect to the Trump Foundations.

  • In reply to jack:
  • 4zen: On your uh-oh, I figured that something like this was coming. The FOIA and Federal Records Act parts of the controversy have been debated here before, but the classified information issue really hasn't been illuminated to the extent as in that article.

    However, this should have been foreseeable, in that there are always counterparties to e-mail.

    Independent of Reuters's legal analysis whether correspondence with foreign heads of state is automatically deemed classified, the two problems I think Hillary just stepped into are:
    (1) If foreign leaders were incensed that private intergovernmental communications were hacked and leaked by Snowden, how could they assume that Hillary's server was any more secure?
    (2) Foreign leaders were in effect deceived, in that something sent to Abedin, presumably on a secure network, was forwarded to Hillary's private server. It might have been for the Secretary's eyes only, but presumably to be forwarded to her on a secure network.*
    *This is related to a discussion elsewhere on Ashley Madison, that there is no way to assure that something on the Internet has been deleted, because it can be propagated all over the place.

  • In reply to jack:

    So how do you see this playing out Jack?

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Are any networks secure, government or private?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    As the Reuters article points out, there are various levels of security, and .gov was not secure enough for this type of message. However, it doesn't aid security that Abedin forwarded a message from a presumably secure network to a private server.

    The possible saving grace is that if hackers didn't know about the existence of clintonemail.com before this, the server is off line and in the possession of the DoJ.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    'From the Clinton point of view this is all a set up by Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett, the three of them. Barack hates Bill and Valerie and Michelle hate Hillary. And they are determined to not let Hillary be the next president. This is the gospel according to Clinton. Because they are worried they will compromise the accomplishments, they will triangulate like Bill and I did. I think they believe, and they are basically right, that in the world of Washington you can not have leak after leak after leak from the executive branch in a Democratic administration without the president letting it happen.'
    -former Clinton advisor Dick Morris

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Dick Morris? You gotta be kiddin.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    But what did James Carville growl?

  • In reply to jack:

    James 'sling-blade' Carville? I thing he just said something about wanting some more of those French fried per-tators, mmm hmmm.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Heck if I know. Don't know if enough are aware to have political fallout, or the Justice Department will actually find something.

    Note that Reuters had to rely on explanations on why the materials were not provided, not the materials themselves. I don't know if it ever gets to a judge having to review them in camera in an FOIA suit.

  • "From the Rose Law Firm billing records to Benghazi, it's the same old story: When the evidence finally emerges, it turns out that Hillary has been diligently coloring inside the lines all along."

    ---Gene Lyons, "Hillary can't get a fair
    shake with media"
    Chicago Sun-Times, August 22,
    2015, p. 12

Leave a comment