Economist Arnold Kling write at EconLog:
In the non-profit sector, it is up to donors to provide discipline. But donors, I would argue, tend to be interested in expressive philanthropy rather than in results. ... I am inclined to think that with non-profits, you get what you pay for. With donors caring about expressing themselves, the non-profit industry is bound to evolve toward satisfying donors' desire for self-expression. That does not mean that it will produce no good results.
The concept of expressive philanthropy might help explain the vast trove piled up by the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is now over a quarter of a billion dollars) in its Cayman Island and other accounts. No matter how fast Mrs. Dees tries to spend the loot Mr. Dees hauls in (and she tries really hard, as these five dozen photos of the Dees's palace that poverty bought show), the money just keeps piling up.
People give huge amounts of money to the SPLC to show how much they hate the Ku Klux Klan. (You can hardly expect the SPLC to explain to the rich rubes that the KKK barely exists anymore, except perhaps for informers hired by the FBI and SPLC.)
Who knows? Maybe all the random Third World knick-knacks that Mrs. Dees decorates their house with weren't bought by her. Maybe they are actually gifts that grateful people have given Morris over the years. I was at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley this week, which has this wonderful collection of the incredible stuff that other countries gave President Reagan on his state visits. "Dear President Reagan, Here is a hippopotamus carved from an elephant's tusk. Please don't drop bombs on us."
But why would somebody give Morris Dees a luxury rickshaw to put by his pool? "Dear Mr. Dees, Here is an objet d'art made out of a ton of used horseshoes. Please don't sue us?" I dunno.
Or maybe they just really want to give him money and shiny crud to show how much they hate hate.
It's like that scene in Bad Teacher where the dweeby rich teacher played by Justin Timberlake, whom gold-digging Cameron Diaz is after, is chaperoning a field trip to Abe Lincoln's log cabin, and the thought of Honest Abe makes him rant for three minutes about how much he hates slavery, while Jason Segel's low rent gym teacher needles him by telling him that he, personally, hates sharks. From TheMovieSpoiler:
On the field trip, Cameron Diaz actually starts to realize what a politically-correct and zombified bore Justin Timberlake really is. He has no real opinion on anything, and just spouts platitudes that dominate conversation in public school teaching circles. In the Illinois state capitol, the students admire a statue of Abraham Lincoln, which prompts Timberlake to deliver remarks on how much he hates slavery, and would time travel so he could "get rid of slavery" before Lincoln if he could. Diaz looks at him like he's a fool, because clearly few alive would say they were fans of slavery...so his taking this totally noncontroversial and obvious position and being so emotional about it makes him seem ridiculous. Jason Segel gets it too, and mocks Timberlake (without him realizing it) by joining the conversation and saying, "You know what I really hate? Sharks!" Timberlake agrees that sharks are indeed awful, because they destroy families. Segel springs the trap and says, 'But, on the other hand, they are magnificent creatures of the deep. Majestic". Timberlake then follows form and admits to highly admiring the majesty of sharks. Diaz, very clearly, sees that Timberlake is programmed on an intrinsic DNA level to just regurgitate platitudes and take noncontroversial, agreeable stances on everything imaginable. She suspects, for the first time possibly, that she does not want a life with someone like this, no matter how deep his trust fund runs.
Somebody should start the Abraham Lincoln Log Cabin Center for the Hating of Slavery and Hate. He'd wind up as rich as Morris Dees.
Posts
26 comments:
Sailer should set up a separate blog where he beats up on himself: Sailer Against Sailer Blog. Maybe he'll get lots of donations from liberals.
I've always been of the opinion that slavery was the worst thing that ever happened to this country. We'd all be so much better off today if it had never happened.
Really, REALLY much better off.
If only Timberlake's character could actually go back in time and prevent slavery from happening. That would be something I think everyone here could enthusiastically support.
This post doesn't address the obvious question: why has Dees's outfit cornered the market?
If it's so easy to extract money from people who want to show how much they hate hate, then why aren't there more people getting in on the act?
This is true of non-profit philanthropies. It's for moral expressivism of rich donors and it's chance at privilege for people with fancy college degrees who feel they are too good for 'grubbing for money'. Generally, those who go into non-profit sector tend to be above average in intelligence but lacking in true originality and knack for success in business--and the competitive spirit. They'd rather pretend that they are working for noble causes when, in fact, what's really attractive is the opportunity to travel, participate in conferences, rub shoulders from people around the world, and reap all sorts of benefits. You pretend like you're busy gathering data and exchanging ideas. You put on a good act and show. It's not much different than what most government bureaucrats do actually. Most people working in the field don't become fabulously rich but it's good for resume--politically very correct--and social/self-image.
Then there are so-called non-profit companies which are actually for-profit companies. Many of them are actually extortion rackets, e.g. consulting firms doling out 'advice' to companies fearing lawsuits. For example, say a business seeks the advice of a non-profit consulting company that specializes in reducing stress among workers; it's kinda like an insurance in case the company gets sued. It can say, 'you see, we consulted with so-and-so company to provide the best working conditions for our workers, etc.'
It's so much bullshit. I know cuz I used to work such a non-profit. We often wondered if anything we did really amounted to a plate of beans. I mean the advice dished out by our company was the usual social work cliche bullshit that anyone with two brain cells could figure out on his own, like 'too much alcohol and drugs are bad'.
"We'd all be so much better off today if it had never happened."
I see what you did there.
Yeah, our mean IQ would be higher and our obesity lower.
If it's so easy to extract money from people who want to show how much they hate hate, then why aren't there more people getting in on the act?
First mover advantage in the herd-like consumer market.
None of these elite status seekers would deign to throw their money away on anything but the hatiest hate haters. SPLC is the label everyone in their social knows as top shelf.
@poultry inspector:
This post doesn't address the obvious question: why has Dees's outfit cornered the market?
Having the McGovern campaign mailing list couldn't have hurt.
Why do people say "I would argue"? Why not "I argue"? Or even just argue the ruddy case and let the reader observe that an argument is being made?
I've always been of the opinion that slavery was the worst thing that ever happened to this country. We'd all be so much better off today if it had never happened.
Ive tried this as an online gambit, sadly most liberals finely tuned antennae pick up the trap.
No slavery means no initial diversity, means no affirmative action.
Yes, I know you can cite Sweden or whoever that never had black slaves but I dont think celebrating diversity in Sweden et al would ever have got anywhere without the the fallout from the multicult/PC/civil rights of the US.
Sailer should set up a separate blog where he beats up on himself: Sailer Against Sailer Blog. Maybe he'll get lots of donations from liberals.
And therein lies the germ of an interesting idea.
The main problem with our liberal pals is bringing them to battle. They cant win the arguments so they chose to ignore them or shout them down.
Setting up a site where Steve's articles are open for discussion in a liberal friendly atmosphere - apparently attacking them - might just be a way of getting them discussed?
Getting a liberal to look into the abyss so the abyss can look into him (or her of course!)
None of these elite status seekers would deign to throw their money away on anything but the hatiest hate haters. SPLC is the label everyone in their social knows as top shelf.
Donating to some other group might be seen as undermining the SPLC and that might be construed as a hate act in itself. Perhaps the SPLC has subtly (or not so subtly) encouraged that thinking? For entirely altruistic reasons of course.
I hate the people who keep trying to give me away to foreign imports. It's like they have some office pool and each year I get closer to 50 the worse the immigrants are who come to claim the prize of one feckless yet persnickety (and aging) white woman that I am.
Last two: a janitor and some guy who was on disability for issues real or imagined.
I always manage to frighten them away with excessive bitchiness. Wonder if I'll be sad when these losers stop trying to mate with me.
Would the Justin Timberlake character have supported the Nuremberg Laws had he worked as a teacher in 1935 Germany?
And yes, in the long run, slavery made everyone worse off. However, in the short run it made plantation owners a lot, lot better off.
One thing the wealthy love to donate to is the environment. In particular, the environment around their vacation lodge in Montana. Billions and billions are funneled to foundations like the Nature Conservancy (to buy up undeveloped land) and the National Resources Defense Council (to file suit against any developers that might want to obstruct the view from their lodge). As donations go, that's probably less destructive than supporting NAMBLA of $PLC.
Steve, [as usual] you're being way too magnanimous with the SPLC.
You know damned well what their agenda is.
And you also know that - if the tables were turned - they'd never in a million years show you the same courtesy.
Did anybody notice that Timberlake's character said he was pro-choice-- about everything except abortion?
"I've always been of the opinion that slavery was the worst thing that ever happened to this country. We'd all be so much better off today if it had never happened.
Really, REALLY much better off."
God, yes.
I've definitely got to see that movie. The scene reminds me of my one summer as a newsroom intern, when the star cops beat reporter spouted off about how much he hated child abusers! Said he just had a thing about that.
"SPLC is the label everyone in their social knows as top shelf."
They're definitely the top brand name, since the NAACP and CORE have fallen out of favor. Lots of Sixties nostalgia going on too, It hink.
"Somebody should start the Abraham Lincoln Log Cabin Center for the Hating of Slavery and Hate."
Isn't Lincoln's log cabin already trademarked by the Log Cabin Republicans? :o)
Mark Zuckerberg was being "expressive" when he donated $100 million to the Newark public school system. If he had given that much money to a charity that might make good use of it, such as the Salvation Army or Red Cross, he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much favorable publicity. Also, he wouldn't have demonstrated that he believes that poor black kids just need more money spent on their education. The fact that it won't make any difference is not important; showing your commitment to that belief is what counts.
Anyone remember that Onion piece: 60% of Klan members at rally are FBI agents, or something like that.
Slavery was the greatest mistake this country ever made. Not because of issues of morality, but because of its long term demographic consequences.
If somebody gave Steve enough money, he could hire staff to set up another web site called SailerWatch or something that would attack everything Steve says. With lots of links, of course.
"Slavery was the greatest mistake this country ever made. Not because of issues of morality, but because of its long term demographic consequences."
No, because of both.
Somebody already came up with the Center for Hating Hate, Steve, a few of them. Check out the Museum of Tolerance down on Pico or any holocaust museum you care to,
Regarding why $PLC has cornered the market, aside from first-mover advantage, it honestly can't be that easy to do all the legwork ginning up "intelligence reports" and finding enough potential lawsuits for "hate" to buy into around the country. Say what you will about the results, you have to appreciate that digging up enough material to stay in business into the 21st century is an accomplishment. There's only room for so many animals at that watering hole. Also, $PLC has to compete with explicitly Jewish and Zionist organizations (ADL, Simon Wiesenthal) and Black organizations (NAACP) for a lot of the same potential dollars. Those other orgs are parochial, have to draw carefully-defined limits in some cases about which "hate" is more equal than others (let me know when you see ADL discussing the settler movement in "Judea and Samaria"), and in the case of the black orgs can be just downright embarrassing when Jesse Jackson spends your money hiding a lovechild or something. Also, there are only so many initials like $PLC that look and sound close enough to SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) that senile old freedom riders signing the checks wouldn't know the difference.
Don't think too hard about "what if America never had slavery." That issue was so central to 19th century politics and to our Constitutional order up to and following the Civil War that you'd be imagining a country that never existed and would have been radically different in too many ways to count.
Post a Comment