New Round in the Browser Wars?

Okay, what's going on. My Firefox Web Browser keeps crashing. They've sent me two updates in the past 24 hours and so far every time they do it gets better for a bit and then I get an XP update from Microsoft and right afterward, Firefox starts crashing again.


It's starting to look fishy.  I can't work because the website I sell stories to won't stay on-line, I keep losing my pages I pull up for research. The only thing I've successfully posted are some comments on Facebook and a weblog about how to get rid of doggie pee pee circles on your lawn.

I always suspected Microsoft changed some features of XP and Windows 2000 to deliberately disable WordPerfect, the primary competitor with Word. I had to give up WordPerfect finally and they were the best as far as word processors went back then.

I've always defended Microsoft, but they need to make sure when they do updates that they let software makers know well enough in advance to get updates out in a timely manner. The reason I chose Windows over Mac was the vast amount of software that was available because Windows made it easy for developers to write programs for Windows.  Please don't tell me Microsoft is trying to go proprietary with it's operating system.

I really don't want to have to learn how to use Linux.

I'm just sayin'

Tom King

P.S.  In the words of Gilda Radner's SNL character, Emily Litella, "Never mind."  Finally I took down removed Comcast's ID Guardian software and the problem went away.  The folks at Mozilla finally got back with me about a week after I finally figure it out and uninstalled this bloated and unnecessary piece of software. Live and learn. I really need a new computer - something with about 10 megs of RAM...

Sauce for the Gander

Should Groups That Proselytize Receive Charitable Funds

by Tom King

ADRA Disaster Worker

Google has decided to cut charitable funding through grants to churches that "proselytize". Erwin DeLeon, the article's author says churches and religious organizations shouldn't be surprised because after all, "Aren’t churches the first ones to exclude those who disagree or challenge their beliefs and those with lifestyles they judge sinful?"

Well, no, Erwin. They aren't.

Erwin goes on to excuse Google, saying the company simply desires to "employ its technology for the greater good. And that includes disadvantaged populations and those that are discriminated against by exclusionary groups such as some faith-based organizations."  

DeLeon, seems to be saying that faith-based organizations routinely discriminate against and exclude disadvantaged populations.  Like most reporters these days, Mr. DeLeon demonstrates a staggering ignorance of the vast scope of Christian charity work. Whenever there is a disaster, it's religious-based groups like Salvation Army, Adventist Disaster and Relief Agency, Mercy Ships and the Red Cross (where do you think the cross came from) that typically show up on the scene ahead of FEMA. Christian Americans give more to worldwide relief work than the federal government and such help more often goes to the actual people who need it rather than to warlords and corrupt third world politicians as so much of US government largesse.

Christians may view some behaviors as sin, but that does not prevent us from offering aid and comfort to all people regardless of their age, race, religion, sexual preference, cultural or ethnic background. Sure we still call a sin a sin, but that doesn't mean we don't offer help to folk who need it. Our exclusion of those who differ from us is primarily self-exclusion. Why would anyone want to belong to a group that doesn't believe the way they do and which views their behavior as "sinful" unless, of course, they want to change that behavior. It's like my relationship with Greenpeace. While I may share some values with them, I don't support their organization and would not belong even though I get mail from them all the time asking me to join up and donate money.

Isn't that proselytizing of the worst sort?

And if proselytizing is a bad thing, then what about Sierra Club, The World Wildlife Federation and Greenpeace? Are you going to exclude them from receiving funds too. They do, after all, openly proselytize people to join their cause. They display bumper stickers, hold revival meetings and chant slogans in support of ideas taken largely on faith (given the recent troubles the global warming folk have had with their data lately).

Seems to me that what's sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.

(c) 2011 by Tom King 

Uncle Sam Becomes a Charity Case

Nonprofit Quarterly ran a recent article called "Weird Philanthropy: Donors Give to the National Debt".  The magazine expressed its befuddlement at the spate of donations to the federal government to help reduce the national debt. The amounts are not substantial, averaging $20-30 for the most part with the "occasional six-figure contribution. The notoriously left-leaning Quarterly wondered in its article what sort of "metrics" these donors were using to judge the effectiveness of these donations and argued that the money would just "go into the general fund" anyway.

It's fascinating how liberals say they like bigger government so long as they're hauling down nice fat grants from the fed. When their own donors start giving to Uncle Sam, though, the complaining begins, because even they realize that public philanthropies don't waste money like the government. They're likely thinking, that all that money will just get flushed down the bureaucratic crapper, when it could go to a nonprofit organization where it would actually do some good.

Recently, conservative talk show hosts, pundits and politicians have challenged pro-tax liberals saying, "If you believe the government is the best manager of welfare programs and you believe you are not being taxed enough, you can always give the amount you believe you are being under-taxed directly to the government."


Apparently, some folks are taking them up on the challenge and putting, at least a bit of their money where their mouth is. It would be bad news for nonprofits in general if the trend were to spread, but the lion's share of giving to charity seems to be coming from faith-based and conservative givers. Most of these folks, many of whom give ten percent or more of their income to charities and churches, have a less rosey view of the federal government as an efficient and effective purveyor of charitable programs and funding.

The average ten percent giver is unlikely to jump on the bandwagon on this one. The gifts to Uncle Sam up to this point appear more symbolic than substantial and given the small amounts, these folk apparently don't think they are underpaying their taxes by very much.

So, next time a pro-tax liberal tells you he is under-taxed and that he does give extra to the federal government, ask him, "How much?"

Tom King