Mailbag: March 24, 2008 - Western Service Workers

If you leave me an "anonymous" post on this blog, I am going to give you a name. And you are probably not going to like it. So, for your own sake, you may want to sign your posts. Thanks.

We just received a letter from an "anonymous" reader, who we will call Strident in Sacramento.
(Here's a link to the original post. Scroll down to find the reader comment.)

Right away, in this letter, I detected a note of criticism.

"maybe it would be better if you didn't comment on things that are more complicated than your scope of current understanding"

Like you, dear readers, I had to reread the sentence a couple of times.

I think Strident in Sacramento meant to say "you should avoid commenting on things you do not understand." But who knows?

Instead we are left to puzzle at the contortions of Strident's first sentence, and wonder whether Strident might have been - at the time of writing this email - agitated, distracted, or perhaps, a chimpanzee.

"you didn't really even check into the organization"

You mean like roach-motel "check-in, never check-out" that sort of thing?

Seriously, I am not a journalist. That's why I post articles written by investigative journalists. And occasionally, I post articles written by journalists duped into thinking some NATLFED entity is legit.

But, since you raised the topic, did you "check into the organization?" Have you seen their books? You do realize that in any legit non-profit, volunteers (and any member of the public) can see clear financial statements of where the money goes, right? When WSWA tells you - as a volunteer - that you can't see their financial statements because they fight the government, that doesn't strike you as odd?

"I hate to tell you, it's a legitimate organization...The reason why we're not a non-profit organization is that we oppose government programs that create economically unstable conditions that make poverty worse. "

I love to tell you... that this excuse for NATLFED/Western Service Workers Association secrecy is not persuasive for anyone outside the NATLFED bubble.

After all, what does filing for non-profit status have to do with government anti-poverty programs?

You are saying that WSWA is scared to maintain financial openness because the government will then target WSWA for persecution?

READER POLL:
Which psychological disorder best characterizes the above statement - paranoia or megalomania? Yes, you can only pick one (that's the challenge).

Anyway, let's say WSWA believes this excuse for financial secrecy vis a vis the government. How then to explain WSWA's unwillingness to open their books to coalition partners in the progressive anti-poverty community? Or to supportive members of the religious community?
Or to its own volunteers?

Same rationale?

"There are plenty of regular volenteers with Western Service Workers Association who can vouch that the organization doesn't meet the criteria for a cult."

Uh huh.

I am just going to assume that if you are volunteering at WSWA, you probably don't realize it is a cult and a scam. If you realized it was a cult and a scam - I am going out on a limb here - you, uh, might stop volunteering there.

So maybe "regular volunteers" is not the full sample of people one ought to be asking. If you include a sprinkle of "former volunteers," "ripped-off donors" and "wary progressive activists" you would get a fuller picture, wouldn't you say?