"Amazin' Randi" skims $175,000 from "non-profit" OCTer "skeptics" club!

[HamdenRice]

The cult-like "skepticism" club headed by former psychic spoon bender, James "Amazin'" Randi, posted a summary of the financials for the JREF in the JREF Forum. Despite running up a loss of nearly $80,000, the organization paid Randi $175,000:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3214725#post3214725

JREF Loss $79,859 FY 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JREF financial records for FY 2006 highlights:

FY 2005: surpus of $2340
LOSS of $79,859 for FY 2006.

Revenue up $80k, expenses up $160k.

Randi's salary $175k.

Advertising $22,000 (+450% over FY 2005)

Consulting fees $14,000 (+47%)

Credit card fees $9,100! (+55%)

Awards $2,000 (-90%!)

<end quote>

So Randi made $175,000 peddling 9/11 skepticism and "anti-truth" while his "non-profit" organization tanks financially!

Looks like the "skeptics" need to be a little more skeptical!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[wildbilln864]

1. well, well....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LARED]

2. As usual you overstate your case

First off Randi peddles lots of stuff outside of exposing 9/11 nonsense. I would hazard a guess the money he generates is largely from lecturing about other BS scams outside of the 9/11.

Also it's hardly shocking that a not-for-profit organization operates at a loss, and two, that the guy the generates most of the income for the organization gets paid well to do so.

[HamdenRice]

3. Nice try, but that's lame

JREF is a "non-profit" educational foundation. The financials were not Randi's, but JREF's. Even many of the "skeptics" on JREF were outraged when they discovered such a significant amount of the revenue of this "non-profit" goes to pay Randi.

Basically JREF appears to be a scam to "raise money" from suckers to pay Randi an inflated salary.

[Twist_U_Up]

4. Its always about the $ with these guys.

whatever happened to humanity?

[LARED]

5. That might be true

but you choose to characterize Randi solely as a 9/11 CT debunker, profiteering on 9/11. I don't think that stands up to scrutiny.

[truedelphi]

6. Now there's a good point. The connection attempted by the OP

is lame

If I set up a non profit to *Supposedly* benefit Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, and I pay myself a lot of the donations as salary, should that fact reflect badly on the efforts of ALL the many C or O supporters?

The premise of this topic is faulty.

There are non profits out there ostensibly about wiping out cancer - and the money is pocketed away for the proprietors of the non profit.

Should that reflect badly on ALL the many cancer research people?

[AZCat]

7. Veteran's groups are typically the most notorious.

All non-profits have to report their financial information to the feds. Occasionally Money will do a review of various organizations and list the best and worst for different categories.

[truedelphi]

8. If you find a decent organization for the Veterans let me know.

I'd do a bit to promote it.

[AZCat]

9. I will. (edited to add info)

Like I said, though, it's difficult. Most of them end up contributing less than 1% (IIRC) to their actual cause. I'll look around and call my dad - he might know of one.




A correction to my original post: see this link for an article about a congressional investigation of veterans' charities. The article says that the ones being investigated in particular have spent approximately 25% on their causes, not 1% as I stated above. I apologize for the error.

[HamdenRice]

10. I think you're missing the point

This obviously isn't an attempt to criticize anyone who considers himself a "skeptic."

Its that the OCTers on this board frequently argue that none of the major figures in the "truth movement" should be believed because they are "making money" selling books and dvds about 9/11.

It turns out that their "dear leader" is also "making money" from the "anti-truth" movement.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[truedelphi]

12. I am a major skeptic and I had never even heard of this guy

Till this topic.

I can't speak for those who heralded this person, but I do NOT think the OP should lump all Truthers into one small contingent.

[HamdenRice]

13. You may have this backwards. Randi's organization is virulently anti "Truth" movement

They organize at JREF to attack anyone who questions the "official" story about 9/11. One of their tactics is to claim the entire truth movement is bogus because some "Truth" movement figures make money on books and cds.

If you think the OP was lumping together "Truthers" then you have the intent of the OP exactly backwards.

[truedelphi]

14. Thanks Hamden! n/t

Or as Roseanne Roseanne Odana used to say, "Never mind"

(And I think I have her name wrong too!)

[HamdenRice]

20. That was Emily Litella!

A different Gilda Radner character!

[truedelphi]

21. Told ya! Actually, you are

tellin' me.

[LARED]

23. I think you're missing the larger point

Major figures in the "truth movement" are making money on the ignorant and foolish. CD, DEW, PODS, Missiles, No planes, etc, is worse than snake oil.

That's not to say all "truthers" are snake oil salesmen, just that most fit that category quite nicely.

Randi (whether or not he is stretching not-for-profit ethics) is making money debunking nonsense. It's probably worth noting that CT'er making money verses so called OCT'ers making money on 9/11 is at least a 50/1 ratio.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

54. I'll wager that you can NOT back up that claim...

and I'll raise you that the OCT'ers are probably making closer to 100 dollars for each 1 dollar that the 9/11 Conspiravangelist™ movement makes.

LARED said:

It's probably worth noting that CT'er making money verses so called OCT'ers making money on 9/11 is at least a 50/1 ratio.

[LARED]

57. I'll jump right on that

right after I prove the sun rose this morning.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

58. You are going to prove a physically impossible event?

This should be interesting. Could you provide a video of this event? I am sure that many astronomers and astrophysicists would very shocked to learn of this phenomenon.

P.S. Thanks for admitting that you could not back up your total B.S. claim about the 9/11 Conspiravangelist™ movement and the ratio of them making money from 9/11 when compared to the OCTers.

[LARED]

59. You think the sun rising is a physically impossible event?

Cool. Tell me more.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

60. Please provide the proof that the sun "rose" this morning.

Please show us the path that the sun follows when it rises. Can you place arrows to indicate the sun's trajectory over the Earth on the picture provided below?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060828.html

If you are directly facing a light on the wall at eye level and then you turn 180 degrees to face the opposite direction, does that mean that the light is now under you?

In short, yes I do believe that the sun rising over the Earth or setting under the Earth is a physically impossible event.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

62. Exactly! It's not profiteering when my guy does it! n/t

[HamdenRice]

11. It appears to be a tax reduction scam

Much of the income of JREF seems to come from Randi's speeches and appearances. If he simply took that as income, his reported income would be several times higher.

By using a non-profit, he is able to funnel his income into a tax free vehicle, JFEF. He then pays himself a taxable salary on part of the income he has earned. He can also spray some of that income to his friends and relatives (the other employees of JREF) as salary who are in a lower tax bracket. He can also accumulate income as savings of JREF on a tax free basis.

According to this summary financial, he seems to be using JREF as a credit card. Credit card fees for the fy were about $9,000. I assume that means "interest" rather than "fees." Assuming a 10% interest rate, JREF would have had an average of $90,000 in credit card debt -- about the same amount as the "loss" for fy 2006.

In other words, by taking a cash salary and borrowing on JREF's credit card for other expenditures, and ignoring form over function, Randi is raiding JREF's credit. It's financially identical to JREF borrowing on its credit card to pay Randi's salary -- or Randi just running up $90K in credit card bills on JREF's corporate account. Alternatively, if JREF had accumulated and invested income from prior years, as one poster suggested, and then paid Randi's salary, JREF would again be basically a tax avoidance scam that allowed "JREF" to earn tax free income on investments in good years and then pay out those accumulations as taxable salary income to Randi during years (like fy 2006) when income was down.

All in all, JREF seems to be a tax avoidance and credit card scam.

[seemslikeadream]

15. THAT'S AMAZING!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MarkyX]

16. James Randi doesn't bother with CTers...

Please show me a video of James Randi personally making a speech against 9/11 conspiracy theories. Oh right, you can't, because no such thing exists.

In fact, JR has stated he found conspiracy theories to be a waste of time. His work has been always focused on the supernatural like ghosts and psychics, never 9/11. The only reason why the conspiracy theory forums exist was because when LC 2nd edition came out, a single topic with over a few thousands posts so the moderators decided to make a conspiracy forum.

You must be desperate for an ad-hom argument since you guys have nothing for over six years.

[Make7]

18. YHBT

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Perry Logan]

17. I had many good times there, till I realized the place was crawling with neocons.

Say what you will, conspiracy people are not a threat to the universe, whereas neocons are.

I hasten to say many of the folks at JREF are cool and awesome people--finances aside.

PS: I was thrown out of JREF, ostensibly because of rudeness--but really because Randi feared my psychic powers.

[truedelphi]

22. Ahm right around the timeyou posted this

My computer stopped working correctly!

;)

[Perry Logan]

27. Sorry about that. It won't happen again.

[truedelphi]

43. Is your sig line self-created?

It is wonderful!

[Perry Logan]

55. Thanks. Yes, I'm afraid it's my own line--spoken with love, you understand.

[JackRiddler]

24. Putting aside whether the 9/11 connection is relevant...

Wow what a racket!

175K off a non-profit "educational" foundation in your own name that's otherwise running a loss, and all you have to do to earn it might is basically play.

[truedelphi]

44. It's convinced me that I was wrong about being part of the Truther's movement

It wasn't MIHOP or LIHOP!

Funny how 175K a year can change one's perception!

And this afternoon I download the non profit paperwork from the IRS and/or other websites.

Any other Truthers willing to defect?

My nonprofit still needs an Operations Manager!

[JackRiddler]

47. Don't I know it...

I've lost so much money through my 9/11 activism, only to be insulted by certain posters here who assume everyone's in it for "the money." (This is, of course, true of certain publishers, but WTF?)

[CrawlingChaos]

49. Tell Me About It

JREF's accusations of profit motive have always smacked of pure desperation, much like my personal favorite absurdity from their arsenal: comparing 9/11 skeptics to creationists and Holocaust deniers. These are irrational attacks -- not something you'd resort to if you're confident of the merits of your own argument.

Furthermore, the rabid emotion of JREF's membership also raises a red flag. Why all the volcanic fury if reason and logic are on their side, as they claim? After all, they've got the whole establishment backing them up, whereas Truthers are pushed into the margins. Their anger and frustration is easily explainable, but why all the bulging veins in JREF-land? Many seem to have made second careers out of pelting rocks at the Truth Movement. Is there no more pressing issue, no greater threat to America's future worthy of such excessive time and energy? If they're so sure it's all crap, why be so threatened and obsessive?

Just asking questions. Oh whoops, hold the phone - in JREF World, asking questions is NOT okay. They call it JAQing off, and from what I've read there, it equates to Holocaust denial. Sound rational?

Anyway...when you JREF folk see David Ray Griffin disembarking from the Truth Movement Luxury Yacht, you let me know. Meanwhile, what's Randi's lifestyle like these days? (pretty "Amazin'", I'll bet)

[JackRiddler]

50. Welcome to DU, CrawlingChaos.

Hope you have fun.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CrawlingChaos]

25. Amazing! Or is it?

I guess if there's one thing Randi's learned from the many televangelists he has studied so carefully, it's that a faithful flock makes for easy fleecing.

The irony, for anyone who's visited JREF (I've only lurked), is what I can only describe as a kind of religiosity among the rank and file. There is one and only one permissible viewpoint, and if you even hint at a mere ghost of a doubt, you will be branded a "twoofer"/infidel and (figuratively) stoned with an endless barrage of the most childish insults. And yet they throw around terms like "critical thinking". It really is a like a cult of pseudoskepticism.

In any event, I see the OP's point -- the fact that the JREF people are constantly going on about the 9/11 Truth Movement's efforts to raise money (as though they wouldn't need to raise money?) makes this revelation quite eyebrow raising. I know I'll have a good laugh the next time one of them blasts ae911truth for selling DVDs.

[HamdenRice]

26. "Religiousity" is the right word

A dedicated few of them organize their all encompassing "critical thinking" world view over there to bring it over here.

And in their certainty that the Bush administration's 9/11 tale is the only permissible one they are as fundamentalist here as they are over there.

[MarkyX]

28. Traits of a Cult

http://csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

This is an easy one. People don't question Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Dylan Avery, or David Ray Griffin around here. They just talk their word as gospel and repeat the same lines cited from these folks over and over again, but they are not allowed to carefully examine them otherwise they are "gumberment shills"

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Say anything bad about the movement on the Loose Change forums or Infowars forum...you're banned. Anyone who even questions the 9/11 deniers will get threats (Bonaduce), stalked (We Are Change guys), or harassed by the movement. To see a recent example of harassment and stalking, Michael Shermer. A guy who had nothing to do with the 9/11 investigations themselves and traveled bookstore to bookstore to promote his book which had nothing to do with 9/11.

3) Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

"9/11 was an inside job! 9/11 was an inside job!" Remember that CHANTING on Ground Zero?

4) The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Considering the fact Prison Planet is basically a fearmongering site that essentially tells you what you should believe it. Don't take medication, feminists are bad, homosexuals are the enemy, kill the jews...

Look at the PP archives sometime. Alex Jones is a wee bit fucked up in the head.

5) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

Do I really need to explain this one? 9/11 Deniers believe they know the truth as if they had some exclusive rights to it. They believe whatever they say is true and anyone who disagrees with them should be eliminated. As I already pointed out, the movement does have a history of threatening and stalking individuals, but there is also Kevin Barret (another popular member within the movement) who always suggest that we should be executing police officers, scientists, journalists...basically anyone who disagrees with the movement. Strangely enough, the guy is also a holocaust denier.

6) The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

Doesn't need an explaination. "Us versus the New World Order". "Us versus the debunkers"

7) The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

The problem with 9/11 deniers is they avoid speaking to anyone who may disagree with them and must resort to creating their own branch of authority. Steven Jones created his Vanity Journal to so he wouldn't be criticized by structural engineers. Same goes with Richard Gage, who never designed a building higher then two stories and had no experience with explosive devices or any involvement in a demolition operation. You'll also find that none of the members of the movement are willing to interview anyone who was actually down there like Chief Daniel Nigro and instead spend their time threatening individuals who had no connection to the investigation in any way but their only offense is simply disagreeing with the movement.

8) The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

Several members of We Are Change were arrested for holding a stash of illegal weapons and pipebombs for their tax-evading buddies the Browns. There is also the usual stalking, threatening, and harassing public figures. If we look at the "evidence" itself, we find most of them tend to be outright lies, quotes out of context, manipulated audio/video, or cropped images.

9) The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

All you need to is watch Alex Jones' message to the future where he calls his own followers cowards to get this trait.

10) Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

Just look at many of the members within the movement and their stories about broken relationships or how they have given everything up so they hand pamphlets in a street corner.

11) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Handing out DVDs in completely random places, viral campaigning, and handling out pamphlets. They use the 9/11 Anniversary as a stage for their recruitment instead of paying respects to the dead.

12) The group is preoccupied with making money.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/merchandise

Try to find a debunker with this much merchandise related to 9/11

13) Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

If you are not busy pushing DVDs or selling books, you are not a true member of the movement. Remember Final Cut where Mark Dice said that all those who didn't buy final cut were cheap fucks? Good times.

14) Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

When was the last time you saw a 9/11 denier friends with a debunker? police officer? firefighter? a structural engineer?

15) The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

The big reason why 9/11 deniers stick to their beliefs is because they want to hate something they know and to some extent, control. They don't know anything about Muslims ("lol left hand OBL? Sand niggers hijacking planes? no wait"!) or the world around them. You even see them take fictional movies like V for Vendetta or the Matrix as "fact". They refuse to talk to anyone who was even at Ground Zero picking up the bodies and the debris or the majority of the firefighters who were down there. They do everything possible to avoid what any sane researcher would do, like a fat person who makes up excuses not to go on a diet.

The worst is they are full of contradictions. Remember when Alex Jones was arrested for bullhorning without a permit last year? The only thing that fat fuck complained about was his hands were hurt during the arrest. Wow, a silly man who talks about the Satanic New World Order and how cops are retards finally gets arrested....only to be released one hour later and bitch about his hands.

But again, you guys have nothing for over six years and you're being despised. You really think attacking people who only question your theories is going to help you?

[HamdenRice]

29. yawn

what a waste of valuable electrons.

[MarkyX]

30. Still nothing six years

It didn't take this long to expose Watergate.

[HamdenRice]

32. double yawn

obviously you don't know what the word "nothing" means.

[JackRiddler]

41. Dude... you need to hang out with someone other than Alex Jones.

Welcome to DU!

Smart of you not to even bother justifying Randi's salary, after all, it's perfectly legal, far as I know.

Best to attack attack attack because that's how you know you're right.

I won't address you point-by-point, because I would never deny the cultish behavior of many of the 9/11 activists, especially those who have come in starting in 2005 with the Loose Change phenomenon, the rise of "We Are Change" and its alliance with Alex Jones. They have recruited much more of a follower element than was around, and attracted more attention from niche-marketing schemes and cults that preceded 9/11 (NWO types, for example).

I don't like them, and neither do hundreds of 9/11 skeptics that I know.

There is no way to hold an election of those who don't believe the government's 9/11 story, so we won't know who's really the most influential. The answer is almost certain, however: The vast majority of those who doubt the official conspiracy theory and who think an inside job is at least possible formed their opinion on their own--without ever knowing about or reading any given skeptic of the OCT. They aren't activists, but they don't believe the OCT and are rightly suspicious of imperialism and the US spook-industrial complex (which most of them probably think of as "the CIA," which is the most representative and notorious branch of a set of longstanding criminal enterprises conducted under the cover of the U.S. government).

9/11 skeptics may be the majority of the people in the world. They may even be a majority of the relatives of September 11 victims, for whom you show such concern. That doesn't make the skeptical view of 9/11 right, it just shows up the absurdity of thinking you win the argument by going ad hominem against your own choice of synecdoche.

For you, it's easy to see
a) who is the loudest
b) who is favored as representative by those who want to dismiss the very idea, like yourself!!!

Now how about you also realize
c) how irrelevant this is to the facts of September 11th and what is to be done

(So, how's your Zelikow Commission doing? How about the torture tapes? Are you one of the ones who's decided recently you never really believed that the 9/11 Commission was an exhaustive, unbiased, authoritative investigation, or are you still clinging to it? Maybe you're more off the neocon end? Are you going to tell us about Saddam's 9/11 links?)

It's not worth bothering to point out ways in which other groups and phenomena in the world mimic the same behaviors and group think you decry, most of which amount to a critique of human social dynamics rather than any given set of groupthinkers as opposed to another.

Groupthink rules, I'm afraid. Go Giants!

It's barely worth pointing out the misanthropy evident in a few of the points you make. One might even get the impression you've never participated in any political street demonstration whatsoever, and look down at those who do. I don't like slogans either, but they're handy when 1,000 people want to announce why they are demonstrating. If that's the chant of a "cult," then it's equally true of those who protest anything.

It's also not worth bothering to point out all of the ways in which your evidence is wrong, selective, applicable only to one part and used to smear the rest, etc. Tenth-grade level readers wil have no problem handling that task.

I'm already done at Number 1, since I wouldn't pick any of those guys in a list of top 10 researchers and thinkers who have expressed 9/11 skepticism, and (except for Jones) they all arrived years after and took up ideas that others had first expressed (generally giving due credit in the process).

If you can't even use the footnotes to figure out who the intellectual pioneers and most developed exponents of a given strand of thought were and are, why do you imagine you are addressing that strand?

It would be a bit like attacking Dr. Phil and thinking you have refuted the psychodynamic approach to the human psyche back to Dr. Freud.

You waste your time. If you're serious about September 11th and its skeptics, you can do your own research, and also read a selection of 20 investigative books or works by authors within both of the two broad paradigms that arose simultaneously, and which are inherently equal as concept (government story v. government involvement).

Then you can and decide which fits the evidence, and defend your choice.

But that's not you, apparently. You more have a need to feel intellectually and morally superior to Alex Jones and his fans. (Are you that insecure?) So please, diddle to that all day.

GO GIANTS!

[CGowen]

45. How do you feel about being in Loose Change and their trailer? n/t

[JackRiddler]

46. No one asked me.

They used a TV feed of me calling out at the 9/11 Commission hearing in June 2004. That's part of the historical record. It's in the CNN transcript and has been used by others.

KEAN: Three questions, then I know the general has to leave.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Ask about the war games that were planned for 9/11.

KEAN: Commissioner Gorelick?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tell us about the 9/11 war games.

GORELICK: Could you please be quiet? We have only a few minutes with General Myers, and I'd like to ask a question. General Myers, the -- I'm sorry.

KEAN: I would ask please people in the audience to be quiet if you want to stay here.

For a long time after that hearing I did feel lousy about my performance, because I was reluctant and wimpy and probably inaudible - although I was only one of two people out of many 9/11 activists at that hearing who called out anything. (So much for the rabid cult theory.) I wish I had been more of a lion at the time. At least stood up and yelled it out clearly and got myself kicked out properly. (They weren't arresting anyone for this.)

Also, I wish I had worn a suit and looked like Anderson Cooper. ;)

I don't feel anything about it being in LC, since I haven't even watched "Final Edition" yet, only the trailer, which looked okay. I'm sick of playing the curmudgeon for pointing out their errors, so I'll take it on faith (like everyone tells me) that LC:FE reduced the bullshit content to something tolerable.

[CGowen]

48. It was a good.

I only heard this before by somebody else:

"Remember this, your government trained and funded Al-Qaeda".

[JackRiddler]

51. Hey Marky, was that it?

Hit and run?

[JackRiddler]

64. Guess it was.

[William Seger]

31. James Randi, arch-enemy of bullshit peddlers

You know full well that Randi is not a "former psychic spoon bender" but instead the nemesis of such "paranormal" con artists. But in your delusional view of the world, you think the slur makes him look bad? Wow, you need a few dozen more ROFLs in your post to pull off that trick. Randi is probably the most visible and most effective promoter of critical thinking anywhere, which makes it pretty easy to figure out why you hate him, HamdenRice. Were you a Uri Geller fan, by any chance? Can't forgive Randi for busting your bubble?

As the very second post in that thread pointed out, Randi's lectures, consulting, and personal appearances brought in $270,000 -- absolutely none of which was for "peddling 9/11 skepticism and 'anti-truth'" since he doesn't waste any time at all on that particular nonsense. That's a bit like he donated $95K to the foundation and then wrote the weekly newsletter for free. He makes $175,000 a year by promoting the idea that people who make extraordinary claims should be required to prove them? I'd say he deserves a raise, and the world could easily use a few dozen more such people, since peddling bullshit is a multi-billion-dollar industry if you include crap like homeopathy. How much do the CEOs at homeopathy companies make for selling distilled water? How much do Sylvia Brown and John Edward make for talking to dead people?

You would like to ignore that the problem is not that some folks in the "truth movement" sell DVDs, but that they sell patent bullshit. But Randi has bigger fish to fry than people like Gage; that job is taken up by volunteers on one particular JREF subforum. You don't have the balls to wander over there and deliver one of your "epistemology" lectures and demonstrate your awesome inductive reasoning skills, so instead you make snide remarks about Randi on this board where there's a lot of sympathy for faulty reasoning. Very sad.

[HamdenRice]

33. The president of Harvard brought in $500 million in donations. He didn't keep $100 million, did he?

But you haven't even read my analysis of what kind of scam JREF is. His defrauding of pitiably conable dupes by begging for "donations" is the lesser scam; the major victim of his scam is the federal treasury. JREF is a tax avoidance scheme above all. I don't deny he generates revenue; the point is that he didn't pay taxes on it, by pretending that that income was the revenue of JREF a "non-profit" "educational foundation" -- rather than his personal piggy bank.

As for being a promoter of "critical thinking" if the cult like JREF forum is an example, then he isn't very successful, is he? Your mouth foaming response seems to confirm the blind cult like attitude that JREF seems to cultivate in its suckers -- errr, I mean, dupes and victims.

Oh, and by the way, Randi spent his early career as a magician, the Amazing Randi -- I remember that doofus doing tricks on "Wonderama," one of my favorite kiddy shows when I was about 8 -- so he is indeed, as I described him a former psychic spoon bender. Most not-mentally-challenged people, however, grew out of the Amazin' Randi, his schtick, and Wonderama a few years before puberty.

[AZCat]

34. This may be a stupid question...

but I don't understand how the JREF could be a tax avoidance scheme and other businesses not. My company, for example, has fluctuating yearly income yet we pay everybody consistently. I bring in more money to the company some years than others but my pay is the same. Are we running a "scheme"?

[HamdenRice]

35. No because you pay taxes on income

Let's say in a good year, you put $100,000 in the bank and earn $10,000 interest. The salaried employees pay taxes on their salaries and the company pays taxes on its investment earnings of $10,000. If next year, you don't make money and pay out your savings to cover salaries, the employees will pay taxes.

Randi seems to have accumulated surpluses (excess of speaking fees over costs) within JREF, which is an untaxed non-profit. It would not have paid taxes on its investment income. Then in a bad year like 2006, it paid out investment gains it never paid taxes on.

Moreover, he seems to be "spraying" income to friends and family in lower tax brackets. If he claimed his fees as income he would have paid taxes on it at a higher bracket level, and then paid estate and gift taxes on it when he gave it to friends and family.

On edit: By using a "non-profit" pass through entity, he is also avoiding "double taxation" -- tax of corporate profits and then tax of his salary or dividends from that corporation -- but that could otherwise legally be avoided by using an "S Corporation."

[AZCat]

36. Aren't all non-profits...

capable of the same maneuver, though? For example, I worked for a 501(c)(4) a while back that had accumulated a considerable surplus (excess of $20 million) over the years that was invested and provided an alternative source of income to fundraising. I don't think nepotism was a real problem for the organization, but certainly there were down years for fundraising income that were weathered with income from up years.

[HamdenRice]

38. As far as I know they are not allowed to do this

Full disclosure: For several years I worked for a large foundation analyzing the effectiveness of their grant making, so I had to read grant proposals, grant recommendations, budgets and financials, and then write a memo, but that was a long time ago.

Back in the 1960s or 1970s, Congress became alarmed that some foundations were accumulating their income to build their endowments rather than making grants. Through the tax code, they imposed a requirement that foundations disburse a certain percentage of their income.

But you are right, non profits are allowed to accumulate surpluses to build up their endowments.

But I was comparing JREF to a for-profit. A for profit has to pay taxes on investment income. Randi is accumulating surpluses in a non-profit (not paying taxes) and then paying out a huge proportion of its current income and income on investments as his personal salary.

If JREF is little more than a vehicle for Randi to accumulate and invest his speaking fees within a non-profit, then it is a tax avoidance scheme.

[AZCat]

42. Why are non-profits...

allowed to do it when for-profits aren't? Shouldn't income from investments be taxed regardless?

[William Seger]

37. That was supposed to be an "analysis"?

It looks more like a string of slanderous assertions backed up by naked speculations represented as if they were facts and a bald-faced lie or two. Now you throw in an inappropriate analogy, more slanderous but totally unsupported assertions, and a few more examples of astoundingly faulty reasoning, all in an attempt to deflect attention from the points I made. As I said, it's not hard to figure out why HamdenRice has a problem with Randi. Can I borrow a dozen ROFLs?

[HamdenRice]

39. Whatever dude

your string of adjectives doesn't add up to much. Read the JREF thread and you'll see that even many of the JREF kool aid drinkers disagree with you.

Btw, talk to your doctor about this anxiety thingy, because stress is really bad for your health in the long run and despite our differences down here we all really care about you. Don't let the exposure of Randi ratchet up your stress levels.

On edit: And, oh yeah, thanks for kicking this thread!

[William Seger]

40. My pleasure

I'm really talking to people who can add for themselves, HamdenRice; your calculator seems to be missing a few buttons.

Kick for wildbill. :hi:

[dougkeenan]

52. "FSM ... wants EWE ... to give MEE ... a hundred dollars"

That's too fine. I never trusted him after he hacked on Carl Sagan.

[JackRiddler]

53. What did he do to Carl Sagan?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

56. Classic Hamden

The information in the link you provided debunks your own argument.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Ummm, guys....

Saying that Randi peddles 9/11 skepticism and anti-truth simply because his website has a 9/11 forum is about as stupid as saying that DU peddles 9/11 CT's simply because there is a forum devoted to that here.

If you would have bothered to check, each week Randi authors something he calls a SWIFT in which he addresses topics he thinks that are germane and timely. In all the years that I have perused the site, I have yet to hear Randi address 9/11. He mostly debunks homeopathic medicine, "psychics" (Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh, John Edward, etc.), religious fanatics, creationists, etc. I think your post is way offbase in more ways than one.

[HamdenRice]

65. Kick!

[mhatrw]

67. Randi is more than amazing, as usual! n/t