Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Say It Aint So, Joe
The D.C. Examiner
waxes indignant at Joe Kennedy's latest series of radio and TV
commercials, in which he shills for a thug
dictator offers heating assistance to America's poor,
courtesy of "our friends in Venezuela."
He never mentions Chavez, nor does he explain why Venezuela, with a 2007 per capita gross domestic product of just $6,900 (less than Croatia or Belarus) would send highly discounted oil to a country with a per capita GDP of $43,500.
This is the same Chavez who expropriated U.S.-owned oil firms, then gave sweetheart deals to Chinese and Russian energy companies. He has repealed basic freedoms of press and speech, and was just barely prevented recently from becoming president for life.
The Examiner editorial also ponders why the born-into-wealth Kennedy takes a $400,000 annual salary to head up a non-profit whose alleged purpose is to provide heating fuel to the poor and elderly. I'd guess that $400K would heat quite a few homes, wouldn't it?
|1.3.08 @ 4:03PM|#
"Rich Kid Born With Silver Spoon Up His Ass Works For Benefit of
Poor at $400K/year."
Never heard that one about a Kennedy before.
/sarcasm
|1.3.08 @ 4:03PM|#
takes a $400,000 annual salary to head up a non-profit
No wonder reason guards their non-profit status so
highly...
Paul|1.3.08 @ 4:04PM|#
born-into-wealth Kennedy takes a $400,000 annual salary to
head up a non-profit
I've always pointed out that non-profits are where the money
is.
Episiarch|1.3.08 @ 4:04PM|#
The only mystery surrounding the Kennedys is why the Massholes keep electing these cretins. It's truly amazing--they are constantly getting into trouble, killing women with cars or golf clubs, getting killed themselves, and topping it all off with breathtaking hypocrisy (no wind farm for Teddy, $400,000 for Joe). Yet they are immensely popular. I just can't fathom it.
GILMORE|1.3.08 @ 4:05PM|#
the editorial also ponders why the born-into-wealth Kennedy
takes a $400,000 annual salary to head up a non-profit whose
alleged purpose is to provide heating fuel to the poor and
elderly.
This is par for the course for a lot of non profits. Its more about
"messaging" and events that put your people in positive position to
do deals with people than it is really achieving results.
I remember some quote by a guy from the Ford Foundation, who after
20+ years of work and billions of dollars spent, basically wrote
off the whole idea of 'aid' as useless, because the machinery of
aid sucks up 90% of the resources.
Greenpeace spends like 87% of their operating budget on marketing
and fundraising AFAIK. I dont think they are abnormal for most
groups - just more likely to disclose because they're big.
There was an interesting article in the times last week about
former hedge fund guys who started a charity-analysis rank,
allowing people to review how effective charitable orgs are at
actually delivering results to the needy.
Naturally, the existing charity/aid groups mostly criticised the
idea as too capitalisty, lacking merit, unfair to some groups,
marginalizing certain kinds of recipients etc.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!
|1.3.08 @ 4:07PM|#
What does the Executive Director of the Reason Institute earn?
How about Cato?
Shall we get into CEO salaries and stockholders?
Dumb cheap shot.
|1.3.08 @ 4:08PM|#
If you qualify for the low price heating oil, then sign up with Joe....and donate the savings to Ron Paul!
|1.3.08 @ 4:10PM|#
That would be the "dictator" who runs for election and
re-election in internationally-certified elections, maintains the
democratic process after a coup is attempted against him, puts his
proposal before the democratically-elected parliament and then the
people in a public referendum, loses the elections, and then
accepts the defeat and moves on, right?
You know, one of THOSE dictators.
|1.3.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Is some third-world doofus wants to give away oil, what's the problem?
Thats pretty much my thoughts on the subject. If Señor Cabron wants
to give away cheap heating oil to the yanquis, more power to
him.
|1.3.08 @ 4:12PM|#
I'd say caudillo describes him better than
dictator.
Yes, joe, hes more like Huey Long than Josef Stalin.
|1.3.08 @ 4:12PM|#
What does the Executive Director of the Reason Institute
earn? How about Cato?
Shall we get into CEO salaries and stockholders?
Dumb cheap shot.
Yes and no.
Unless the heads of Cato or Reason Institute are from families of
fabulous wealth and power, I would say you are comparing apples to
oranges, joe...
Episiarch|1.3.08 @ 4:13PM|#
joe, can you explain the appeal of the Kennedys, seeing as you are from their state?
|1.3.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Anyway, heat for the poor is a good cause, whatever heartburn it
may cause certain people. If you live in a cold climate, there's
probably a local nonprof helping fill poor people's oil tanks, and
they wouldn't turn down a donation.
Four degrees on my drive into work this morning. Ever hear the wind
above the drop ceiling in a three-decker in January?
|1.3.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Shall we get into CEO salaries and stockholders?
The difference is that CEOs head organizations that are all about
making money.
That's not supposed to be the case for nonprofits.
Bingo|1.3.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Here comes joe with the moral equivalence argument, everyone get ready to dogpile the strawman!
|1.3.08 @ 4:17PM|#
joe,
I take it you wouldn't have had any problem if, in 2002, Bush set
up an election that would make him president for life.
|1.3.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Episiarch,
No new Kennedy has been elected in Massachusetts in two decades.
Ted gets re-elected because he's a long-incumbent senator. The last
time one flirted with a run for public office was the gubenatorial
race in 2002, and he got laughed off the stage.
I sense people are getting sick of Ted. The Cape Wind project is
wildely popular in Massachusetts, like 70-30 in favor, and people
are not happy about Teddy's NIMBYism. He's had a good run, but it's
time to pass the to-ach to a new generation of leadahship.
I have|1.3.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Ever hear the wind above the drop ceiling in a three-decker
in January?
Yep. Three years on Magnus Ave in beautiful Somerville.
|1.3.08 @ 4:19PM|#
The difference is that CEOs head organizations that are all
about making money.
...for their stockholders.
|1.3.08 @ 4:20PM|#
crimethink,
I'd vote against it, of course. That's a terrible idea.
Even if, as actually happened, it was a proposal to allow him to
run for office for more than two terms, and not "make him president
for life."
R C Dean|1.3.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Dumb cheap shot.
Not really, joe. Private firms are all about making money. Reason's
message is, in part, that people should be able to get as wealthy
as they can without government interference. Paying big salaries is
100% consistent with that.
Kennedy, though, is diverting money from an organization to a use
inconsistent with its avowed mission by cashing a big check that he
shouldn't need at all.
Its kind of like how the President of Exxon driving a Hummer isn't
hypocrisy, but Al Gore's big carbon footprint is.
|1.3.08 @ 4:20PM|#
He never mentions Chavez, nor does he explain why Venezuela,
with a 2007 per capita gross domestic product of just $6,900 (less
than Croatia or Belarus) would send highly discounted oil to a
country with a per capita GDP of $43,500.
Should he mention these things? How are they relevant to someone in
this country who uses his oven for heat in the winter? People can't
afford their own heating oil, and our government won't do more. I
don't care if it's the Third Reich giving the oil; I say take it
and thank you very much.
Kennedy takes a $400,000 annual salary to head up a non-profit
whose alleged purpose is to provide heating fuel to the poor and
elderly. I'd guess that $400K would heat quite a few homes,
wouldn't it?
Yeah, what the hell, Joe? That might take care of three or four
Maine counties for the whole winter.
Episiarch|1.3.08 @ 4:21PM|#
The Cape Wind project is wildely popular in Massachusetts,
like 70-30 in favor, and people are not happy about Teddy's
NIMBYism.
I was amazed that it seemed he was getting away with that shit and
the people of MA weren't calling him on it. Good to hear that they
might be.
|1.3.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Speaking of moral equivalence arguments, does anyone want to
change their mind on the Stormfront dude donating to RP now?
He's had a good run, but it's time to pass the to-ach to a new
generation of leadahship.
I think Ted should pass the dutchie.
|1.3.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Unless the heads of Cato or Reason Institute are from
families of fabulous wealth and power, I would say you are
comparing apples to oranges, joe.
I don't see why this matters. Comparing Joe Kennedy's salary to
that of the heads of other non-profits is an apples to apples
comparison.
Who cares what family they come from or what their personal wealth
is or what their last name is? Unless the implication is that
certain rich people shouldn't get big salaries?
And last I checked, most people around here believe that the high
salaries are needed to attract the best talent, no? Why should
non-profits not be allowed to compete for the best talent with
salary?
If you want to take the position that the heads of non-profits
shouldn't take such high salaries to the detriment of the
non-profit that is fine, but when you are merely upset with certain
heads of certain non-profits (with certain surnames) then you are
exposing yourself as rather disingenuous.
You may as well just be poisting "I HATE THE KENNEDYS AND ANYTHING
THEY DO IS WRONG IN MY BOOK"
R C Dean|1.3.08 @ 4:23PM|#
...for their stockholders.
So, a CEO's salary is diverting money from stockholders, is that
your argument?
If the CEO is increasing shareholder value by more than his salary,
then I would say there is still no contradiction. And, of course,
the stockholders, via the board, can always get rid of the CEO or
cut his pay.
I really don't think you can say the same about Joe Kennedy's
diversion of charitable funds.
the innominate one|1.3.08 @ 4:23PM|#
joe, I don't see where it is a cheap shot. Cato and Reason Foundation don't exist to serve the poor.
R C Dean|1.3.08 @ 4:24PM|#
I HATE THE KENNEDYS AND ANYTHING THEY DO IS WRONG IN MY
BOOK
I'd read that book.
|1.3.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Cato and Reason Foundation don't exist to serve the
poor.
A non-profit is a non-profit. They exist to use their donations to
push an agenda/mindset/ideas. Diverting donations to the foundation
to pay a large CEO's salary would be just as wrong.
|1.3.08 @ 4:32PM|#
The average salary of a CEO of a large charity is about $145 K. A good site to research where to send your money is Charity Navigator.
the innominate one|1.3.08 @ 4:33PM|#
@ChicagoTom: a nonprofit is a nonprofit?
* 501(c)(1) - Corporations organized under acts of Congress such as
Federal Credit Unions
* 501(c)(2) - Title holding corporations for exempt
organizations
* 501(c)(3) - Various charitable, non-profit, religious, and
educational organizations (see below)
* 501(c)(4) - Various political education organizations (see
below)
* 501(c)(5) - Labor Unions and Agriculture
* 501(c)(6) - Business league and chamber of commerce organizations
(see below)
* 501(c)(7) - Recreational club organizations
* 501(c)(8) - Fraternal beneficiary societies
* 501(c)(9) - Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations
* 501(c)(10) - Fraternal lodge societies
* 501(c)(11) - Teachers' retirement fund associations
* 501(c)(12) - Local Benevolent Life Insurance Associations, Mutual
Irrigation and Telephone Companies and like organizations
* 501(c)(13) - Cemetery companies
* 501(c)(14) - Credit Unions
* 501(c)(15) - Mutual insurance companies
* 501(c)(16) - Corporations organized to finance crop
operations
* 501(c)(17) - Employees' associations
* 501(c)(18) - Employee-funded pension trusts created before June
25, 1959
* 501(c)(19) - Veterans' organizations
* 501(c)(20) - Group legal services plan organizations
* 501(c)(21) - Black lung benefit trusts
* 501(c)(22) - Withdrawal liability payment fund
* 501(c)(23) - Veterans' organizations created before 1880
* 501(c)(25) - Title-holding corporations for qualified exempt
organizations
* 501(c)(26) - State-sponsored high-risk health coverage
organizations
* 501(c)(27) - State-sponsored workers' compensation reinsurance
organizations
* 501(c)(28) - National railroad retirement investment trust
the issue isn't whether the organization is a nonprofit, the issue
is the organization's stated mission.
|1.3.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Big Joe Kennedy was an early supporter of Hitler.
Little Joe Kennedy is a shill for Chavez.
I think I see a pattern here.
|1.3.08 @ 4:35PM|#
It is not the fact that it is a non-profit that is the
issue.
The issue is that it is hypocritical to accept a large salary from
an organization ostensibly devoted to the service of the poor.
Kennedy is a Catholic, I believe. How would St. Francis view his
salary?
|1.3.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Kennedy is a Catholic, I believe. How would St. Francis view his salary?
Well, first you'd have to look at the standard of living of Bishops
and Popes. Not exactly impoverished.
BTW, a lot of those medieval monastic orders were awash in valuable
land and gold.
|1.3.08 @ 4:37PM|#
I HATE THE KENNEDYS FEAR POWERFUL
FAMILIES THAT TRY TO START MONARCHIES AND
ANYTHINGS THEY DO LIKE TEAMING UP WITH
NUTJOB DICTATORS IS WRONG IN MY BOOK
|1.3.08 @ 4:38PM|#
So, why exactly is it a problem for poor Americans to take free
oil from our 'enemy,' but it's cool to pay for it?
Politics has made you an asshole. Get to work demolishing the CITGO
sign at Fenway.
Altar boy|1.3.08 @ 4:38PM|#
How would St. Francis view his salary?
I think St. Francis has more important things to worry about these
days. If you know what I mean.
|1.3.08 @ 4:39PM|#
If St Francis is the judge, all of us who don't live in caves and subsist on berries from the woods are screwed.
|1.3.08 @ 4:41PM|#
I find the $400K salary hypocritical, however: The best measure
of a nonprofit is what percentage of its budget actually goes to
admistrative costs and salaries.
IIRC, it's usually less than 10 percent. Wonder if that's the case
here.
There is no such concern from the public about for-profits. The
only concern would be from the stockholders.
And yes, I think the Kennedys are fat, laughable hyenas.
|1.3.08 @ 4:44PM|#
BTW, a lot of those medieval monastic orders were awash in
valuable land and gold.
True, but Francis railed against many of them for not giving it to
the poor. Not all medieval Catholics were the Borgias.
Much as I like St Francis, I'm pretty sure there was something
wrong in his head...
BakedPenguin|1.3.08 @ 4:46PM|#
BTW, a lot of those medieval monastic orders were awash in valuable land and gold.
A lot of medieval convents were basically whorehouses. There's a
non-profit a Kennedy can support. With VIGAH!
|1.3.08 @ 4:48PM|#
I personally couldn't give two shits about how much Kennedy is paid for his services. Like others have mentioned, you have to pay a lot for top talent (if that's what he is). The real kicker here is that he is happily going along with this Venezuelan-screw-job because Chavez and him don't like Bush. Plus, Chavez doesn't care if his people starve so that he can make a political point. And joe, exactly what don't you find appealing about Chavez?
|1.3.08 @ 4:49PM|#
If JFK and RFK hadn't been assassinated, the Kennedys wouldn't
be much above the Hiltons in the public view.
How JFK deserves to be treated as one of our great presidents
boggles my mind. He increased troop levels in Vietnam, watched the
illegal Berlin Wall go up on his watch, and ordered one of the
stupidest, most ill-conceived military actions in US history in the
Bay of Pigs. But, because he had a pretty wife and got his brains
blown out, I guess that makes up for it all.
I have too|1.3.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Ever hear the wind above the drop ceiling in a three-decker in January?
i have too|1.3.08 @ 4:51PM|#
oops. to finish...
Yep. Four years on Ames St. in beautiful Somerville.
Fra Giovanni|1.3.08 @ 4:54PM|#
If St Francis is the judge, all of us who don't live in
caves and subsist on berries from the woods are screwed.
Indeed. Let's not forget the story of the pile of dung:
"Saint Francis himself seems to have been almost pathologically
disgusted by money, which he regarded as inextricably linked with
avarice. Celano's Vita Secunda offers several examples of this
aversion. In one story, a layman coming to pray at the Franciscan
church of the Porziuncola near Assisi (now the basilica of S. Maria
degli Angeli) places a money offering at the foot of the cross. A
brother touches the coin only in order to fling it onto the
windowsill and then immediately repents. Nonetheless, he is scolded
by Francis. As punishment, the friar is told to pick the coin up in
his teeth and toss it into the dung heap beyond the convent fence.
(69) The rule of 1221 prohibited the friars from handling or
receiving money for any reason except for dealing with the needs of
sick brothers. Any friar finding coins is instructed 'to pay no
more attention to them than to the dust we tread underfoot. ...'
(70)"
from here
|1.3.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Oh yeah, and before someone brings up the Cuban Missile Crisis,
JFK himself created the mess with his idiotic Bay of Pigs invasion,
and his "great leadership during a time of crisis" or whatever
consisted of a few days of inaction followed by his jumping to
accept any offer from the Soviets that allowed him to save face
(ie, agreeing to never invade Cuba and pull our missiles from
Turkey). If he really had "stared down the Russians" as fawning
historians claim, why didn't he push for more concessions from
them?
::shouts at half-dollar coin:: I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU!
|1.3.08 @ 5:01PM|#
I work for a non-profit. The executive director here makes
signifigantly less than 400k.
Usually when a non-profit has a highly paid head guy like that, it
is because that guy can attract a lot more money and support from
donors. I don't think there a lot of donors lining up to give money
to joe-4-oil.
|1.3.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1995
dic*ta*tor N. 1. a ruler exercising absolute power without
hereditary right or the free consent of the people
|1.3.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Cesar,
I'd say Huey Long "describes him better than Josef Stalin,"
too.
But not quite. It is unthinkable that Huey Long would allow himself
to lose an election when he had enough power to cheat if he wanted
to.
|1.3.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1995
dic*ta*tor N. 1. a ruler exercising absolute power without
hereditary right or the free consent of the people
Are you sure that dictionary isn't from 1928?
Rimfax|1.3.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Hey now, little Joe never killed any women,...he only made one a paraplegic.
|1.3.08 @ 5:12PM|#
R C Deana also doesn't realize that corporate officers are
supposed to make money for the corporation and the shareholders,
not themselves. Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer?
In a nutshell, this failure to understand the differece between
these two interests is why the "investor class" theory Repubicans
used to advance has proven so worthless.
|1.3.08 @ 5:13PM|#
He never mentions Chavez, nor does he explain why Venezuela,
with a 2007 per capita gross domestic product of just $6,900 (less
than Croatia or Belarus) would send highly discounted oil to a
country with a per capita GDP of $43,500.
Everyone who thinks that Citizens Energy provides heating oil to
households earning $43,500 please raise your hand, ball it into a
fist, and bring it down sharply on the top of your head.
What's with the collectivist group identity analysis of
politics?
fyodor|1.3.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Unless Joe K. is on record as stating that no one should make that much money or that CEO's of non-profits shouldn't, or unless he claims not to, I see no hypocrisy. But I think it's contrary to libertarian principles to act like there's something wrong with someone making that much money, for any purpose or cause. As long as the people paying him think they're getting their money's worth, and as they use contributed monies in a manner consistent with how they claim to, don't chafe my cheeks. I suppose one could make the argument that Joe K. should tell Chavez to keep the money and use it for his own poor consituents, but as there's no telling if he'd use that way if he didn't give it to Joe, I don't see how that's much of an argument. Taking money from any government when they obviously got it without asking each taxpayer's permission is questionable IMO, but that's obviously not the issue here. Any taking of tainted money can be a sticky issue, true, but hardly one that falls clearly on either side of the argument. Just ask Ron Paul.
Paul|1.3.08 @ 5:20PM|#
No new Kennedy has been elected in Massachusetts in two
decades.
Why bother when they can keep electing the old ones?
Episiarch|1.3.08 @ 5:21PM|#
joe, I have to wonder if you'd be presenting the same argument if Rupert Murdoch was shilling for "Oil from our friends in [Pinochet's] Chile" while receiving $400 grand from a non-profit.
|1.3.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Yeah, well, the wind above the drop ceiling in a three-decker is
even windier in Fitchburg than in Somerville. So there.
Marcvs,
I find a great deal unappealing about Chavez. His grab for
executive power, for example, or his policy of staging photo opps
with the Iranians, or his idiotic display at the U.N.
When I criticize certain trigger-happy people for flailing away at
Teh New Stalin, when said "dictator" is a democratic prolitician
who just happens to be sitting on a big lake of oil, and has been
the target of violent overthrow efforts by people with ties to our
government (and those same trigger-happy people), and doesn't play
nice with our oil companies - believe me, it's not warm feelings
towards to the third-world politician that motivates me.
|1.3.08 @ 5:26PM|#
fyodor,
Taking money from any government when they obviously got it
without asking each taxpayer's permission is questionable
IMO
In this case, Citgo is donating some of its heating oil.
If Exxon donated exactly the same amount of oil to poor families in
the US to get some good press, would this be a blog post? Would it
matter who owns Citgo? Would it matter where they drilled for the
oil?
I think the answer to all of those questions is "No."
Juan|1.3.08 @ 5:28PM|#
I should know better than to get into these threads, but
anyway...
"Dictatordom" is not a binary variable, there are degrees. Chavez
is pretty high on the scale, Putin (just to note an example) is
higher, and the top would be Fidel or the North Korea guys or
something. Where you rank on the scale depends, on large part, on
what you can get away with, and Putin can get away with more stuff
than Chavez, as we have seen.
|1.3.08 @ 5:29PM|#
R C Deana also doesn't realize that corporate officers are
supposed to make money for the corporation and the shareholders,
not themselves.
Aren't corporate officers awarded stock so as to motivate them to
increase shareholder value?
Juan|1.3.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Well, if we're going down that road, I technically own 1/27000000 of Citgo...
Paul|1.3.08 @ 5:29PM|#
You know, this gnashing of teeth over salaries, compared to
other salaries, compared to ceo's compared to non-profit ceo's is a
waste of time. No one's talking about the substance of the post
here.
What we have is Kennedy (but really, as ChicagoTom says, who cares
who he is) who earns $400,000 salary, one (1) salary for this
entire organizaton who may have a budget in the millions, running a
(presumably) expensive ad offering "low-cost" heating oil to
qualifying Americans courtesy of "our friends" in Venezuela.
Is it conceivable that said non-profit could merely redirect all of
this money and offer the same heating oil to the same group of
qualifying Americans and bypass the whole Venezuela deal
altogether?
Given Venezuela's GDP, could Chavez not give the low-cost
heating oil to Americans and instead offer the value of said
heating oil as a direct check to qualifying poor
Venezuelan's?
The point here is that this is a game of politics, not an act of
altruism. Are we clear on that?
|1.3.08 @ 5:30PM|#
If Exxon donated exactly the same amount of oil to poor
families in the US to get some good press, would this be a blog
post?
Exxon has to answer to its stockholders, who are free to sell their
shares.
Citgo is a state-run organization, financed off the backs of
Venezuela's citizens.
|1.3.08 @ 5:30PM|#
When people don't recognize the difference between a democratic
politician whose policies they don't like, and a dictator filling
mass graves, that's a problem.
When those same people have a history of writing passionately about
how important it is that we use wars and other violent means
against dictators, the problem becomes even bigger.
|1.3.08 @ 5:33PM|#
When those same people have a history of writing
passionately about how important it is that we use wars and other
violent means against dictators
Who, me? When did I ever make that argument?
I'm just saying that the dictionary definition of "dictator" you
posted doesn't cover Herr Hitler, who was in fact elected. Freely.
By retards.
Paul|1.3.08 @ 5:34PM|#
democratic politician whose policies they don't like, and a
dictator filling mass graves,
Joe, I don't think you have to fill mass graves to be a
dictator.
There are other qualifying
factors.
|1.3.08 @ 5:34PM|#
joe--Let me know when you get to the part about Chavez's great
commitment to democracy.
As to those who say "who cares?": lie down with dogs/get in bed
with the devil. You pick.
If you can't see the dilemma about standing with a
pseudo-dictatorial thug, then your moral posturings aren't worth
all that much.
|1.3.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
Did you intend to suggest that Citgo costs the citizens of
Venezuela money? Because it doesn't. It brings in an enormous
amount of money.
As a matter of fact, a great deal more of that money is being spent
on efforts* to benefit the poor in Venezuela than prior to Chavez's
election. In case you're wondering, Reason Magazine ran exactly
zero pieces criticizing anyone at Citgo for taking a salary and
denying the money to Venezuelans.
*whether they are effective is another question
|1.3.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Some people just hate it when someone helps the poor. If you're
not going to do it, don't bitch when someone else does.
Crimethink, I don't know why JFK was so loved, but a lot of people
from that era sure loved him. He was before my time. But I guess
it's like the republicans loving Reagan. He greatly raised the
debt, lost in Lebanon, and made deals with the Iranians. But they
think he is the beacon of conservatism. I give Reagan a lot of
credit for ending the cold war, but look how quick the republicans
want to bring it back, albeit a different enemy.
|1.3.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
Actually, I was thinking of Radley Balko and R C Dean when I wrote
that.
|1.3.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Did you intend to suggest that Citgo costs the citizens of
Venezuela money? Because it doesn't. It brings in an enormous
amount of money.
Joe, no I didn't intend to. But the fact that Citgo makes money for
"la gente" doesnt' change the fact that it's state-run, and
probably at the expense of other industries.
|1.3.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Everyone who thinks that Citizens Energy provides heating
oil to households earning $43,500 please raise your hand, ball it
into a fist, and bring it down sharply on the top of your
head.
Everyonewho thinks Citizen's Energy only provides heating oil to
people who keep the thermostat below 68 F raise their right hand.
Anybody who thinks that many who get heating energy assistance have
warmer house than you do in the winter, tell joe.
I'll start by using both hands to type. joe, from personal
experience with poor people, (yes joe, I do encounter poor people
in my personal life) many wear short sleeves at home in the winter,
leave the front door open to talk to those on the porch, won't
insulate or even tape over the cracks in the window frames. Yes
joe, MANY of the "poor" piss away money when it's provided by
somebody else and not fungible.
Aside from all that energy irresponsibility, I encourage all
qualified heating oil customers to take as much from the dirt poor
Venezuelans as they can get. It makes Hugo look good and that's
what's really important here, not the poverty stricken indigenous
people in Venezuela.
|1.3.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Joe, I can't recall:
Does Balko support the Iraq war or a possible war with Iran?
Serious question.
|1.3.08 @ 5:42PM|#
JW,
Let me know when you get to the part where you're ok with the
people benefitting from the donation not having heat. While we're
going cheap shots.
If Chavez was actually a dictatorial thug, somebody who was filling
mass graves or cancelling/cheating on elections, I'd have a big
problem with such an ad. If Joe Kennedy was thanking "our friends
in Iraq" back during the Saddam/Rummy handshake days, for
example.
But, once again, internationally certified elections, saved his
country's democracy from a coup, indepdendent civil society, large
and vocal opposition press, lost election. This is more like saying
"from our friends in Mexico" or "from our friends in Nigeria,"
during one of the periods when Nigeria was run by a democratic
government.
|1.3.08 @ 5:45PM|#
J sub D,
I don't hold poor people to higher standards because they are poor.
You think no one with money is ever wasteful? I guess you can
always find reasons to shit on the less fortunate if you really
want to.
I hear some of those poor Venezuelans are wasteful, too. Funny how
strategic you are in your compassion.
|1.3.08 @ 5:47PM|#
So, who here ever once voiced an opinion that Citgo wasn't
returning enough money to the poor in Venezuela back before Hugo
Chavez vastly increased the amount of Citgo money going to poor in
Venezuela?
Cue Jeopardy theme.
Jamie,
IIRC, Radley was all about liberating the poor people of Iraq.
Paul|1.3.08 @ 5:53PM|#
I don't hold poor people to higher standards because they
are poor. You think no one with money is ever wasteful?
Joe, I think the point of Jsub's post was to point out that if
money was so tight, some more time spent trying to save it would be
paid.
Wealthier people are surely wasteful, but it's within their
capacity to be so. Does it seem fair? Not really. I bought a DVD
the other day for $19.95. Did I need the DVD? No. There are
starving people who can't afford a meal, but I still bought my DVD.
Was that wasteful?
In the end I don't think, however, that this is really easy to
quantify. I would agree that if you're really poor, taping up a
window probably isn't going to make the difference between having
heat and not having heat.
I can tell you, though, that doing something like not buying
cigarettes might actually make the difference between having and
not having heat.
|1.3.08 @ 5:53PM|#
If Chavez was actually a dictatorial thug, somebody who was
filling mass graves or cancelling/cheating on elections, I'd have a
big problem with such an ad.
So, as long as he's only confiscating and nationalizing private
property, sicking his goons on protesters, shutting down TV
stations that critcize him, locking up political activists, packing
the high court with his cronies, etc., you're OK with that?
Don't pull a muscle trying to set those high standards there,
joe.
Seriously. If you can't see the moral dilemma, then climb down off
the high horse already.
|1.3.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Paul,
Like any oil company advertising its good works, Citgo is doing
this to get good press.
And like any oil company CEO, Chavez has probably convinced himself
that he's an altruistic humanitarian acting from the very best
motives.
|1.3.08 @ 6:01PM|#
JW,
Half of what you write is bullshit; half of it is overwrought
language used to steal bases in an argument, half of it is
one-sided, and half of it is legitimate.
I am not OK with the fourth half, and only half ok with the second
and third halfs.
To answer what you would have asked if you were more honest and
less prone to let your desire to be a heroic freedom fighter run
away with your capacity for accuracy, I consider Chavez's
government to be far enough on this side of the dictator/democrat
line to have no problem with the ad, even as I wish he was even
further from the line.
Paul|1.3.08 @ 6:02PM|#
And like any oil company CEO, Chavez has probably convinced
himself [...]
And, as an astute observer of corporate CEO's, we can probably
conclude that he's full of shit.
|1.3.08 @ 6:03PM|#
If you can't see the moral dilemma, then climb down off the
high horse already.
I'm not the one condemning anyone here, Torquemanda.
Remember? Repeat along with the others: "Bad Joe Kennedy. Bad! Bad
Citgo. Bad! Bad Joe Kennedy. Tut tut tut."
|1.3.08 @ 6:06PM|#
So, as long as he's only confiscating and nationalizing
private property...
Yep, he fucked with the oil companies but good.
Let's not pretend there's any other reason any of us have heard of
him.
|1.3.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Half of what you write is bullshit; half of it is
overwrought language used to steal bases in an argument, half of it
is one-sided, and half of it is legitimate.
My god. It's like we think with the same mind. I'll let you play
with the right half tomorrow.
Feel free to dispute anything that I wrote with actual facts joe.
Go crazy.
I consider Chavez's government to be far enough on this side of
the dictator/democrat line to have no problem with the ad, even as
I wish he was even further from the line.
You must be a blast at the ANSWER anti-war rallies. In all
seriousness though, I don't think moral relativism was engineered
to go as far as you have pushed it today. Ease back on the stick,
slick.
|1.3.08 @ 6:15PM|#
I'm not the one condemning anyone here,
Torquemanda.
Nah, just sucking up to a thug and a lout who have "good
intentions." That's sooooo much better.
Hey, didn't Little Joe try to have his 12-year marriage annulled? I
wonder what his kids thought of that.
R C Dean|1.3.08 @ 6:17PM|#
R C Dean also doesn't realize that corporate officers are
supposed to make money for the corporation and the shareholders,
not themselves. Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer?
joe doesn't realize that corporate officers are allowed to make as
much money as the shareholders, via the board, is willing to pay
them.
The shareholders and the board generally regard this expenditure of
money as consistent with the corporation's pursuit of profit, on
the belief (correct or not) that (a) these guys are making us money
and (b) if we don't pay them this much, they will leave. In a
dynamic economy, paying for talent is not a zero-sum game.
In the charitable world, however, every dollar spent on a CEO is a
dollar not spent on a freezing single mother, and it gets to be
very hard to make the dynamic economic argument that paying big
bucks to a Maximum Leader results in more money to pursue the
corporate mission.
R C Dean|1.3.08 @ 6:19PM|#
As a matter of fact, a great deal more of that money is
being spent on efforts* to benefit the poor in Venezuela than prior
to Chavez's election.
That calls for a link.
|1.3.08 @ 6:21PM|#
ANSWER rallies.
Some people can't ever get over their red/blue horseshit. Ho ho,
another shot at a Kennedy!
I'm not going to roll around in the mud trying to draw an accurate
picture about your claims. When one side strives for fairness and
the other for absolute victory regardless of the facts, it doesn't
come out well for the truth.
Well, we've reached the silly-assed strawman stage. If you don't
believe every piece of propaganda about Teh New Stalin, that means
you wuv him.
|1.3.08 @ 6:23PM|#
So Joe is taking up for Chavez (sort of) because Rodney Balko
was in favor of the Iraq war?
Has Balko argued for our intervention (has anyone here?) in
Venezuela, or that Chavez is a Bad Guy[tm] who we should shun, or
is he just doing this because Chavez became such a darling of the
Left its fun to tweak them about the thug? Support for one war
doesn't automatically lead to support for another.
I mean, I supported the Iraq War (note tense) and certainly
wouldn't shed a tear if Chavez got it in the neck, but I don't want
the US to invade or engage in any dirty tricks to bring it
about.
|1.3.08 @ 6:25PM|#
joe doesn't realize that corporate officers are allowed to
make as much money as the shareholders, via the board, is willing
to pay them.'
Sure I realize this. Just like the officers of Citizens Energy are
allowed to make as much money as the board and donors are willing
to pay them. I'd say that the party arguing that Joe Kennedy's
salary is fair game and CEOs of for-profit companies are not isn't
holding up his end very well.
In the charitable world, however, every dollar spent on a CEO
is a dollar not spent on a freezing single mother
I've been on the board of a charity, RC. Unlike you, I'm sure.
Celebrity brings in the money.
Stop pretending you give a crap about poor people who need heat,
RC. You've certainly never demonstrated the slightest concern
before.
|1.3.08 @ 6:28PM|#
Regarding Joe Kennedy's $400K salary. I don't know first if this
is the case in this particular instance, but this is a common
tax/estate dodge done by "monied" families. The way it works is as
follows:
Set up sibling in non-profit organization.
Grandparents and parents make "donations" to above organization and
receive a tax deduction based on their marginal tax rate.
Son or daughter receives salary (suprise-about the same amount as
the contribution of the parent/grandparent) and picks up income at
his/her marginal tax rate (usually much lower).
The added benefit is the transfer of wealth and avoidance of the
estate tax (+55%).
Ta-Da! ;~)
|1.3.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Jammer,
Bringing down Teh New Stalin is a big deal for a lot of people with
their own selfish interests, and they made the observation that
people who fantasize about being Vaclav Havel can be manipulated
into supporting their PR efforts by pushing a few buttons. They
were right, btw. Very easily manipulated people.
Just like those who decided it would be a really great idea to
invade Iraq set out to manipulate those same people with lots of
talk about how much they care about the people of Iraq and
democracy there.
I've had it with shit. They spent years pounding away at how
Venezuela was just about to become Pol Pot's Cambodia, and made
their point by backing a coup d'etat against an elected leader who,
a couple years later, puts his political program to a popular vote
in free elections, loses, and accepts the results!
I've had it with this shit.
|1.3.08 @ 6:34PM|#
I'm not going to roll around in the mud trying to draw an
accurate picture about your claims. When one side strives for
fairness and the other for absolute victory regardless of the
facts, it doesn't come out well for the truth.
OK, you don't have any actual or factual rebuttal, just silly
rhetoric. You're empty sheriff, I can see that now. Sundown's a'
comin'.
So, joe, let me get this straight....actual dictatorial intentions
and attempted anti-democratic actions don't matter. Beliefs and
convictions don't matter. Actual respect for human rights don't
matter. All that matters is results.
Yeah, that sounds about right. That "useful" thing is sneaking up
on you.
Radley Balko|1.3.08 @ 6:40PM|#
joe.....
Radley was all about liberating the poor people of
Iraq.
...really? I, Radley Balko, would say you're rather full of
shit.
Google much?
|1.3.08 @ 6:41PM|#
I've had it with this shit.
Well, yes, I get that, but is anyone here making the intervene
argument?
|1.3.08 @ 6:42PM|#
JW, nothing you wrote reflects anything close to what I
wrote.
It is exactly this idiotic, purposeful disregard for the truth and
complete lack of interest in conversing in an honest manner or
acknowledging my points that convinces me of the worthlessness of
debating you.
Why would I try to make a point like, "The TV station he closed was
airing anti-government propaganda in the midst of a violent
military coup, which would get you thrown off the air here, too.
There is still a large, noisy opposition press, including Fox News
available throughout the country. So while I don't approve of the
decision, it's understandable, and not very strong evidence of a
dictatorial hand squashing dissent," when your response is going to
be "Blah blah joe loves Chavez and censorship, let me spill every
bit of bile I feel about Teh Socialists?"
You're got your nice, simplistic, absolutist story, and you're not
remotely interested in fairness or facts. THAT'S why I'm not
debating you, JW, not because you have the facts on your side.
|1.3.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Jammer,
1. It starts with the PR effort.
2. It's the same PR effort we saw before we backed that coup in
2002.
I'm not interested in watching people keep that PR campaign
going.
Radley, no, I don't google much. If I misremembered your stance on
the Iraq War, my bad.
Radley Balko|1.3.08 @ 7:40PM|#
joe --
Have you ever actually met or talked with anyone from
Venezuela?
You should. Might make you a bit more reluctant with your defenses
of that thug.
No, I wouldn't support an invasion of or war with Venezuela. But
that doesn't mean Chavez shouldn't be exposed for the tyrant that
he is.
And Joe Kennedy is a giant douche for taking to the airwaves to
help Chavez gloat over giving free heating oil to Americans while
his own people starve. And yeah, many of them are in fact
starving.
I don't have a problem with poor Americans taking Citgo's charity.
I do have a problem with a former U.S. congressman shilling for a
despot who suppresses free speech, starves his own people, has no
tolerance for a free press, and suppresses political dissent.
And yes, there's something unseemly about Kennedy taking a $400,000
salary while doing PR for an opporessive regime that rails against
wealth and stresses egalitarianism and income equality ("equality"
meaning "everyone is equally poor").
|1.3.08 @ 8:32PM|#
Radley,
Yes, I've met and spoken with someone from Venezuela, but he was a
crazy leftie with a Chavez poster.
And I haven't defended anything except Venezuelans' right to pick
their own leaders, and honest journalism.
...while his own people starve. And yeah, many of them are in
fact starving. More of Citgo's profits are going to poor
Venezuelans under Chavez than under any of his predecessors - you
know, the period when you never wrote a word about how much money
Citgo was spending on the poor? There cannot possibly be anything
more fake than this outrage about the drop-in-the-bucket cost of
this PR gesture from people who are passionately opposed to Citgo's
profits being used on social programs for Venezuela's poor in the
first place.
You know, I expect this shit from the rabble, Radley, but to see
you falling for this "with us or with the terrorists" horse shit is
deeply disappointing. I guess the vision of yourself as the brave
anti-communist dissident makes moderate, responsible, accurate
analysis of the situation there seem a bit drab.
As far as Kennedy, would you prefer he give the heating oil back?
How many cold apartments are your feelings worth?
|1.3.08 @ 8:34PM|#
("equality" meaning "everyone is equally poor").
Uh huh. Just as long as this ginned up outrage isn't all a stalking
horse for your opposition to Chavez's economic policies.
|1.3.08 @ 8:35PM|#
When the usual suspects keep yammering about the New Stalin, and he's holding (and losing) elections, there aren't any bodies piling up, and oh yeah, he has a leftist economic program, sits on a big lake of oil, and doesn't play nice with our government and oil companies, maybe a little more skepticism is in order.
|1.4.08 @ 12:07AM|#
When the usual suspects keep yammering about the New Stalin,
and he's holding (and losing) elections, there aren't any bodies
piling up...
No, not yet. I was surprised when he accepted his election
loss.
The real test will be when he comes up for re-election. (Does
anyone know when that is?)
If he holds an honest, free election, and accepts the results of a
defeat, then I will be the first to say "Joe was right and our
Chavez fears were overblown".
|1.4.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Thank you, Kurt.
Some wrote the same thing about the referendum in December, either
before or after the results were in - that a Chavez loss
demonstrates that their fears were overblown.
Others came up with some pretty creative conspiracy theories to
show how the loss just demonstrates what a crafty, omnipotent
bastard Chavez really is.
It must tough when the guy you've been watching on the Two Minute
Hate for three years ends up being just another politician after
all. That's why I don't watch Two Minute Hates.
|1.4.08 @ 11:46AM|#
I don't believe he is crafty or omnipotent at all.
In fact, the more I read his quotes, he seems kind of stupid.
I believe the U.S. should just stand aside and let him crash and
burn all by himself.
|1.4.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Isn't the real question why these poor people won't just accept
libertarian principles and freeze to death like they're obviously
meant to?
Not for nothing, but I live in Mass, and have long considered Joe
Kennedy and Citizens Oil to be an example of a privileged rich guy
actually doing something for the greater good instead of hunkering
down and just being a rich prick.
economist|1.4.08 @ 4:53PM|#
joe
"And I haven't defended anything except the Venezuelans' right to
choose their own leaders."
No one has a "right" to choose an economic populist who seizes
private property, uses said property to prop up his socialist
welfare state, and befriends Castro. People have rights to their
own life, liberty, and property. There is no right in any majority
to violate these basic rights. I don't doubt that the majority of
Venezuelans like Chavez. However, they have NO RIGHT to use
majority status to grind their axes with the capitalists of their
country. Personally, if I were a Venezuelan doctor, engineer, or
businessman, I would currently be taking the option used by Cubans
in the early days of Castro's regime. You know, before the island
became a prison.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245