diploma in Fundraising and Resource Development

One can get a degree in fundraising, amazing. How much goes to administration?

The average salary is over $70,000 …. One gets nothin’ for nothin’ …. unless of course one plays the guitar as in the Dire Straits song – Money for Nothing ….

I shoulda learned to play the guitar
I shoulda learned to play them drums
Look at that mama, she got it stickin’ in the camera
Man we could have some fun
And he’s up there, what’s that? Hawaiian noises?
Bangin’ on the bongoes like a chimpanzee
That ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
Get your money for nothin’ get your chicks for free

;-)

Just look at it this way.

We are living in at a time when the taxpayer does not want to pay any more, so they say.

Rich people are getting richer and Canada is inching towards the USA system of philanthropy to take from the rich to give to the poor on a voluntary basis rather than a forced tax basis.

One way or another we have to pay for the services we receive. The only people to squeeze are those who have the money – either voluntary or by law.

Voluntary is the more difficult way to do it. There are not enough people who are good at that. So, what do we do? We come up with this brilliant idea that we educate people on how to do it. So why did it take a College in the Georgian Bay area to come up with that idea. Why could CNC not come up with that idea? That is what we have to come up with, entrepreneurship training. ;-)

I hope she is paid the same as Mr. McGowan because she should be. I think her resume sounds stronger than his did (helps to have friends on the board).

How many of those ‘rich people’ who are said “….to have the money” actually keep their wealth in money? Isn’t what they really have assets valued in money?

But just because some asset is valued in money doesn’t mean that the person who possesses that asset actually HAS that amount of money, in money, does it?

In fact, aren’t the only two ways that most of these people could transform an asset valued in money into money itself is to either borrow against it, or sell it.

Considering that there is a monopoly of credit creation, at least of the kind of credit that passes for money, and that monopoly is vested in the banking system ~ which DOESN’T lend money that has been deposited with it, but creates entirely new money every time a new bank loan is made, (as a bookkeeping deposit), and that if the possessor of a wealth of assets needed to convert what is relatively ‘fixed’ into something that is ‘liquid’, so he can pay the taxes imposed on him, say, in money, then whether he sells his assets for money, or borrows against them, who is REALLY going to be the beneficiary?

The problem that is persistently overlooked is NOT one of how to ‘re-distribute’ money from the the so-called rich to so-called poor. But that ‘money’ itself is progressively more and more deficient in its totality in ratio to the ‘price values’ of assets in their totality expressed in money. And try as we may, there is simply no way anyone can make a deficiency (of money in ratio to prices) into a sufficiency by simply re-distributing it, through forced taxation or voluntarily or anyways else.

Caring for/about health is a fundamental, but so is prevention of poor health. Prevention should have the same importance as treatment, if not more!

I hope the new CEO will make her mark and take this opportunity begin immediately advocating for the elimination of fluoridation from Prince George city tap water! It’s people like her who are in a position of influence and responsibility. Concerned citizens have been listened to but nothing has been DONE about their legitimate concerns for more than the last two decades!

The Canadian Cancer Society states that it is “unlikely” that fluoridation contributes to the incidence of cancer, including that of bone cancer. It does not say that it is impossible, 100% impossible backed by scientific proof.

It is wrong to keep adding a substance to our tap water without being 100% certain that it is totally harmless! To keep doing it while awaiting if the latest outcomes of studies have any merit is playing dice with public health, in my opinion.

Prince George water has a natural concentration of natural fluoride in it – before an unnatural chemical effluent fluoride is added to it. There is no need for that! 98% of B.C. residents do NOT receive this industrial effluent in their drinking water, regardless of the concentration of natural fluoride found in their drinking water. Why should we (2%) put up with potentially harmful artificial adulteration of OUR water?

The 2% that are left are demanding clean natural city tap water!

The pecentage has just go e up PG.You have convinced me that I should join the cause. But we have a big problem . The Core Revioew has told the City to keep poisening our water.

And if I may comment. Gus is not only a great insperation in our comunity but he/she is also a singer.
cheers

Retired 02, thanks! Actually, KPMG is only suggesting – recommending to the city that it keeps fluoridation because there are benefits for a modest cost.

KPMG has no medical training (the mayor and council don’t have medical training either) and is therefore relying on other sources which it believes to be reliable.

Of course, nobody takes any responsibility either, everybody thinks that the final responsibility is held by some other body elsewhere.

However, any other body does not FORCE the council to endorse fluoridation. It is only a SUGGESTION! Therefore, every other body is off the hook – the council makes the final decision, thinking that it is not on the hook either. Legally there is such a principle as Willful Ignorance. It is not a legal excuse when the final deciders have been made aware of concerns and a suggestion has been made to them to act with caution by suspending a practice which could be a threat to the public. I have researched the legal consequences of Willful Ignorance and come to my personal conclusion that an official in charge of decision making which affects the health of the public at large would be extremely unwise to rely on it as an excuse.

I have read a core review from another Canadian city and the company in charge of that one simply suggested that the city could save 7 million dollars by halting fluoridation altogether, including not to extend it to newly built subdivisions. The recommendation did not include a statement as to the perceived benefits of fluoridating water with the industrial effluent hydrofluorosilicic acid fluoride.

Then it was properly studied by the council and after much contemplation it was stopped.