Implications for Nonprofits in Federal Spending Cuts

There will be tough choices, no doubt about it. There will also be compromises. There are a few issues at play related to nonprofits and federal spending cuts:

• Nonprofits receive a not-insignifiant amount of money from government spending.
• The public benefit theory of nonprofits goes something like this: more healthy nonprofits, taken as a whole, are a good thing because of the pluralism principle. A vibrant, robust NP sector facilitates social change (think women's suffrage). The NP sector is essentially subsidized by direct funding and through tax exempt status. One side argues that NPs should only be tax exempt if they are performing services that government would normally provide (education, health care, etc.), and another side argues that we should be encouraging pluralism of interests and organizations because they enrich society as a whole.
• The theory also states that many diverse NPs create independent power centers outside government. Contrast the US (where anyone can create their own 501(c) organization) to France, where NPs must have a political figure on their board. In France, the power is largely concentrated in hands of government (and religious organizations, too), with less power flowing to the NP sector. I would argue that a robust NP sector allows citizens to voice opinions, and be empowered, in a peaceful channel. E.g. pro-choice and anti-abortion groups are empowered through nonprofit advocacy. The alternative?
• One final point from the Chronicle of Philanthropy. 2012 Obama Plan: $451M for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $770M for AmeriCorps. 2011 Republican plan: $0 for CPB, $0 for AmeriCorps. Yes, we must make cuts. We must make sacrifices, and there will be compromises. Yet the argument of "private money will step in where government steps out" rings hollow in many instances. Foundations give only $45B per year in the US, a very, very small fraction of federal government spending. Personally, I have trouble reconciling these issues. I fundamentally believe that less government is good government, but to a point. It is naive to think that such dramatic cuts to CPB and AmeriCorps would be fully compensated for by private funding, nor can we make a compelling argument (in my opinion) that programs like these are "excessive, unnecessary, and wasteful spending," as Hal Rogers (chair of appropriations committee) says. It's going to be interesting to see how all of this budget wrangling plays out.

USA USA USA!

Saturday's Honduras - US soccer game was only showed on PPV in the States, so I had to find a bar in Durham called "The Honduras Restaurant" to see the game. Taqueria trucks outside the venue, disco music pre-gaming, $20 cover, Honduran jerseys everywhere. There were also a few idiot American fans being obnoxious and wearing over-the-top USA poof hats. Not a pretty scene.

Anyways, The Honduras Restaurant doubles as a strip joint on other nights. But for Saturday, it was packed with raucous Hondurans singin all their songs. I went with a Honduran friend of mine (good idea in retrospect) for protection, but I didn't need it. Among all the Latin countries, the Hondurans give a lot of respect. There's no animosity there. Example: if I spoke Spanish to a Honduran, he'd generally be surprised and buy me a beer. I can't say that spirit of soccer brotherhood exists among other Latino countries (as far as soccer is concerned).

World Cup Draws happen on December 4th. Anyone want to road trip to South Africa? I'm getting pumped up, especially if Holden and Davies keep getting PT.

On another note, go here: http://soccerpolitics.com/. A Durham - based blog, etc. on ....well... soccer and politics.

They're all Insane

I can't stand watching more than a few minutes of cable "news" in one sitting, for the obvious reasons:

1) Bias through "balance": giving equal time to legitimate and nutcase viewpoints, thus legitimizing the nutcases)
2) Principled bias: knee jerk, predictable opinions that gloss over the merits of an argument in favor of mind-numbing partisanship)
3) Non-news: Go to CNN's homepage. I guarantee that a featured story will be about the latest car chase in L.A. or a tabloid story (such as Natalee Holloway). Even respectable news outlets are beginning to change for the worse: BBC World had live coverage of the Michael Jackson coverage on Thursday; the same day NPR did a profile on Levi Johnston, the ex-fiancee of Sarah Palin's daughter.

As news becomes more stratified (conservatives watch Fox News, liberals watch MSNBC, economists read blogs, religious types watch CBN, etc.), people are less inclined to question their own beliefs and more inclined to watch news that rationalized their own biases. Continuing this trend, it is not hard to envision a super-partisan world - even more so than what exists now.

This got me thinking - who exactly are the television personalities that we're all listening to? Are they insane, as I think them to be? Or are they simply puppets (albeit smart puppets) who play to what their audiences want? More importantly, who can actually watch Lou Dobbs Tonight with a straight face?

Here's some bios and clips from some of my favorites. It's not a comprehensive list - what are your favorite cable news/opinion moments and personalities?

Glenn Beck
Wikipedia bio
From Wikipedia: "Beck is a self-described recovering alcoholic and drug addict"
Click for Beck making a complete ass out of himself (highly recommended viewing)

Sean Hannity
Wikipedia bio

I can't find any huge malfunctions in Hannity's bio - what am I missing?

Rush Limbaugh
Wikipedia bio
From Wikipedia:

"In the October 23, 2006 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh imitated on the "DittoCam" (the webcam for website subscribers to see him on the air) the physical symptoms of actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease.[18][19] He said "(Fox) is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

Michael J. Fox later appeared on CBS with Katie Couric and said he was actually dyskinesic at the time, a condition that results from his medication."

"In June 2006, Limbaugh was detained by drug enforcement agents at Palm Beach International Airport. Customs officials confiscated Viagra from Limbaugh's luggage as he was returning from the Dominican Republic. The prescription was not in Limbaugh's name.
After he was released with no charges filed, Limbaugh joked about the incident on his radio show, claiming that he got the Viagra at the Clinton Library and was told they were blue M&M's. He also stated that "I had a great time in the Dominican Republic. Wish I could tell you about it."

"On October 3, 2003 the National Enquirer reported that Limbaugh was being investigated for illegally obtaining the prescription drugs oxycodone and hydrocodone. Other news outlets quickly confirmed the investigation.[96] He admitted to listeners on his radio show on October 10 that he was addicted to prescription painkillers and stated that he would enter inpatient treatment for 30 days, immediately after the broadcast.[97] Limbaugh stated his addiction to painkillers resulted from several years of severe back pain heightened by a botched surgery intended to correct those problems.

Previously, Limbaugh has condemned illegal drug use on his radio broadcast and has stated that those convicted of drug crimes should be sent to jail."

I'll post more later. Up next: Keith Olberman and any other liberal wack jobs I can think of. Anyone got any suggestions? Am I holding these guys to too high a standard?

Democrats = the best for national security?

I´ve never understood why so many people automatically equate Republicans as strong on national security and Democrats as weak. True, Republicans generally spend more money on the military. But national security is not only measured by the size and sophistication of a country´s armed forces (although it is certainly one component).

Rather, a more complete measure of "national security" would include economic and cultural factors as well. For instance, I´d be willing to say that the "number of people who hate America to their core (and are therefore subject to terrorist leanings)" is just as important to our national security than the number of aircraft carriers we have. As a parallel, Israel may be "protected" by a well-funded military, but what do they have to show for it? Enmity from every Muslim country in the world, and a precarious existence that becomes even more precarious as terrorists become more sophisticated. Even if Israel (or any other country) spent 10X more on their military budget, the animosity generated would mitigate much of the security gained.

So, this brings be back to the original question - is it accurate to conclude that Republicans are "better on national security issues" than Democrats just because they spend more on the military? I say no. Thus far, Obama has been successful in proving this point. As an American, I feel much safer knowing that the American government is not as internationally despised as it once was. To be sure, grudges against the U.S. are still many (see my post and Colin´s comment on this subject), whether founded or unfounded. But in a world with so many threats, America can´t defend itself from every threat; it needs popular support from the citizens of other countries. The less people hate us, the more secure we will be. Perception matters, whether we like it or not.

Europe vs. America

My friend Colin sent me this article on how the perceived differences between Europe and America aren´t as large as we think. While I think that some of the metrics the author uses can be debated (such as the "number of books borrowed from the library" to indicate literacy levels), the article raises some interesting points.

Random Thoughts from Spain

1) Since I got to Spain, I am constantly hungry. There are very little vegetables here, and if you order veggies in a restaurant, you might get half a tomato. I think my body is craving some nutrition other than meat and bread.

2) Non-Americans don´t like America to a greater extent than I expected. I´ve had more than a few conversations with foreigners about this, and despite the Obama euphoria that many people feel, more people than expected are not ready to "forgive" the US of it´s sins (Iraq, torture, etc.). I was talking with a German woman last night and she refused to allow that the 50/51/48% of americans who voted for W and McCain in the past three elections could be, in fact, good hearted people with misguided voting habits (or even principled and well-spoken opponents of liberal policies). She kept harping on the invasion of Iraq, seemingly the most vicious act of aggression in recent history. I had to remind her - politely - that her country, and the rest of Europe for that matter, have been invading their neighbors for the past few centuries and beyond.

Well, the point is that I´ve been sticking up for America more than I thought I would. I´ve never been one to take America´s side, but I´m sticking up for the USA a bit more now. Yes, the US has done some abominable things in the past, but it´s too easy of an excuse to blame everything on America. It´s a cop-out and excuses taking responsibility.

Important caveat to this thought: 99% of the people I´ve met have been kind, reasonable people that are willing to have calm discussions on difficult subjects. These conversations are teaching me much about my culture and how it is different (in good ways and bad ways, and sometimes just different) from others.

3) Europeans and their long vacations. Maybe it´s the American in my DNA, but I don´t get how people can take months off from work to travel. I have to admit, I´m slightly envious of the number of vacation days that some Europeans get, though.

4) I am ready to give up wearing sandals. They do not suit me.

5) I want to start learning Spanish again.

6) Traveling solo. Traveling solo is about making near-constant mistakes (taking the wrong bus, saying the wrong thing, making a cultural faux pas) and then picking yourself back up, only to make even more mistakes. I love this.

Being alone gave me a system shock for the first few days. I didn´t really know how to not have email, phone, etc. constantly relieving any loneliness. It took a couple days for me to figure out a) how to be comfortable just by myself, and b) to be bold in meeting new people. These things have been great "growth experiences."

7) I much prefer meeting new people than just seeing stuff.