Philanthropy should be a core value that brings communities together, especially now when the federal government is forcing localities to be more self-reliant.
Facebook is heavy with comments on what FXBG Advance wrote about the 'donation' from the billion-dollar DATA CENTER industry to Friends of the Rappahannock. I didn't even see this article until I read the negative comments about 'Advance' selling its soul.
Geez. It's so obvious. 'Disappointing' doesn't come close to what former subscribers are writing.
Why go after the public? It's right out of the DATA CENTER 'playbook'. Identify one public comment. Use it to set an example in an attempt to gag their First Amendment and to discourage others' civic engagement to question what the DATA CENTER industry uses as strategy to stifle and wear out 'the public'?
Unbelievable that 'Advance' would fall for this ploy. Leo Watkins' comment below, in response, is authentically simple: 'Sadly, you're wrong'.
'Advance' attacked this discerning and caring citizen: “These tech industries,” wrote one commentor, “do not have the city and its people’s best interest in mind when they come in and wave money around to environmental organizations like Friends of the Rappahannock.”
That commentator is spot on.
We had a huge turnout in the 12-10-25 PC chambers due to the Rapid Response Team of the Fredericksburg Neighborhoods Coalition getting the info out to each door, Sunday afternoon in the neighborhoods, NEGATIVELY affected by DATA CENTERS: the applicant's preferred route for huge transmission lines. and no, they can't be buried, cost too much, along Cowan Blvd past The Preserve at Smith Run and Hills of Snowden neighborhoods.
Great Oaks behind the Shell gas station on Plank Rd, slated for 4 DATA CENTERS close to their backyards. Even Chris, the owner of the nearby Good Car Wash was notified with an FNC flyer.
Good Car Wash is the successful business that DATA CENTER regional attorney, Charlie Payne, said would not have an issue with the applicant blocking the front access to his car wash to move it to the back of his property. Really???!!!
Who in their right mind would believe that horse-hooey? There was a groan in the room.
and another when 'ole Charlie Payne said that his applicant was going to even put in a few charging stations at the DATA CENTER site, and folks could even wash their car afterwards:
In a follow-up question from perceptive Planning Commissioner Johnson, to talk more about the charging stations, Mr. Charlie Payne, ever the fast-talker, smoothly replied, 'And of course, folks would come and pay the charge'. G-R-O-A-N.
What is wrong with people who don't see this slick sell? NoVA residents who now live here would never put up with this to play once gullible Fredericksburg.
And BTW, where's the journalistic standard DISCLAIMER STATEMENT that DATA CENTER industry-employed honchos are on some "Advance' group? and in no way, do they 'influence this 'Advance' article?
Now 'associated' with the 'FXBG Advance': DATA CENTER Regional Attorney Charlie Payne and DATA CENTER developer, Kevin Hughes, out in 'Celebrate Virginia' near the apts which house children who are 'historically marginalized' and will be exposed to the pollutants that are identified as 'silent killers' (Harvard Business Review, 11-5-25: 'Mitigating the Public Health Impact of DATA CENTERS').
Yes it's nice that people are giving this time of year, and when they see a need. Good for them. I join them on occasion.
Habitat for Humanity is one of my favorite charities, the Salvation Army is the next. I'm strongly considering donating to the Rappahannock Farm next year if my time allows.
But that most certainly does not mean that our whole system should not be questioned. Now, more than ever.
So your basic premises, that we should accept this as the best thing for the common good is one that I strongly question, and consider very open to debate.
You blithely touch on some of the reasons yourself. Though I would posit they warrant a deeper look.
Let's look at some of "giving" that we do.
In Stafford County, we have state mandated "giving" to disabled veterans of tax free personal property taxes. That leads to the rest of us paying their burden for services they enjoy. Often though the disabled veteran may have a higher amount of assets or net income each year than the non-disabled citizen required to support him.
With plausible reports from sources such as the WaPo and the Veteran's Administration itself of unchecked and unquestioned abuses of that designation of disability - it seems the possibility of abuse is there.
Regardless, this "giving" is resulting in some of the highest property rates for the rest of us of anyone in the state.
How many organizations such as churches enjoy tax-free status when the funds coming into them are allowing them to compete against private entities that do not enjoy tax free status while providing the same services - such as child care, community meeting space rentals, gyms, restaurants? And can also slip in sub-legal wages to their employees by claiming that requiring them to pay minimum wage is interference between the church and state?
Not to mention how many of these "non-profits" enjoy tax free status for their lands where these business activities happen. Or use their non-profit fund raising and charity status to launder money used to influence the political process? How many non-profit organizations such as hospitals use their advantage to shield for profit activities?
Then, as mentioned by you, what about the "donors"?
Interesting, when similar news organizations, such as Cardinal News reports on an item that affects a donor source, it has a disclaimer about that someone donating to them as you do, but they also add, as a matter of policy, and it appears practice - a notice not only of the fact of the donation, but that they have a clear policy that such donations do not influence their content. WaPo seems to do the same thing. Appears to be an industry standard.
Why is there no similar disclaimer here? Oversight, or something that is not policy?
And yes, I can see legitimate reasons to question reasons for giving on occasion.
When someone who is angling to gain your water rights starts providing sudden, over the top giving to news organizations that might be reporting on their actions, or non-profits that are vested in the asset they may be taking/controlling - it is reasonable to question why.
But more important than all of that, is this.
Is it working?
By that, I mean the system as a whole.
The rest of the 1st world and most of the 2nd world provides some form of basic, nationalized health care to their citizens.
It's not only considered a basic right, but a sound investment.
Their citizens don't spend every year worrying about whether they need to kiss up to their boss to make sure their 3 year old can get his vaccinations this month, because if they lose their job they lose their family's healthcare.
Or if their house will be repossessed because they needed heart surgery last month. Why do we accept such things?
They don't see billions wasted on middle men gaming the maze of special interest loopholes and regulations that is only found here.
So is providing blind support to such a system where if you do or do not get a kidney transplant is based more upon whether you're photogenic or well connected enough to have a good Go-Fund_Me" page the way to go, or can we do better?
I think we can. I think we should. But we won't until we quit accepting the current status quo.
Should whether our military get paid depend upon if a flush billionaire wants to part with a few millions to make sure they stay loyal to the right kind of people, or should they be paid by taxpayers as decided by law?
I know that when past civilizations started letting private citizens buy their military, they found that military loyal to that individual over the state. So I'm not so sure allowing such "giving" is wise. Looks more like "buying" to me.
You often spout about how poorly we teach our children.
And I ask what are we teaching them when we divvy up life by how popular someone is, or how well they beg rather than what will do the most good for a limited amount of resources?
Certainly not the value of life. But the rather value of popularity. Is that really how we should do distribution of limited assets?
If so, then no wonder we are a nation led by the likes of Trump.
So is the best way to meet our citizens' food needs by providing photo ops on the giving holidays - so everyone can feel good about seeing it the best way - or we would be better just quietly making sure that no kid has to be hungry while they are sitting in class - or for that matter - no parent has to worry about feeding their kid any month - because we see their children as valuable to all of us, not just them?
Is this play for attention by organizations truly giving, or are they getting something in return?
As a Christian, I can't help but be informed by how similar these actions are to praying and then think of Matthew 6:5:
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward."
With that in mind, it's hard to be too impressed by these annual photo ops. Like the man says, they're getting their reward.
We often ask why our children have such contempt for our ideals. Maybe what we should instead be asking what are our ideals?
I know what we say, but when you look at what we do, it's not the same thing.
So maybe we ought to go back to some of these basic premises that we are taking as givens and look at them again.
You give platitudes, and present them as answers.
But I see questions. I think we can do better. I think we should do better.
Really? Another shill editorial for the Data Center industry? You have lost all credibility.
Facebook is heavy with comments on what FXBG Advance wrote about the 'donation' from the billion-dollar DATA CENTER industry to Friends of the Rappahannock. I didn't even see this article until I read the negative comments about 'Advance' selling its soul.
Geez. It's so obvious. 'Disappointing' doesn't come close to what former subscribers are writing.
Why go after the public? It's right out of the DATA CENTER 'playbook'. Identify one public comment. Use it to set an example in an attempt to gag their First Amendment and to discourage others' civic engagement to question what the DATA CENTER industry uses as strategy to stifle and wear out 'the public'?
Unbelievable that 'Advance' would fall for this ploy. Leo Watkins' comment below, in response, is authentically simple: 'Sadly, you're wrong'.
'Advance' attacked this discerning and caring citizen: “These tech industries,” wrote one commentor, “do not have the city and its people’s best interest in mind when they come in and wave money around to environmental organizations like Friends of the Rappahannock.”
That commentator is spot on.
We had a huge turnout in the 12-10-25 PC chambers due to the Rapid Response Team of the Fredericksburg Neighborhoods Coalition getting the info out to each door, Sunday afternoon in the neighborhoods, NEGATIVELY affected by DATA CENTERS: the applicant's preferred route for huge transmission lines. and no, they can't be buried, cost too much, along Cowan Blvd past The Preserve at Smith Run and Hills of Snowden neighborhoods.
Great Oaks behind the Shell gas station on Plank Rd, slated for 4 DATA CENTERS close to their backyards. Even Chris, the owner of the nearby Good Car Wash was notified with an FNC flyer.
Good Car Wash is the successful business that DATA CENTER regional attorney, Charlie Payne, said would not have an issue with the applicant blocking the front access to his car wash to move it to the back of his property. Really???!!!
Who in their right mind would believe that horse-hooey? There was a groan in the room.
and another when 'ole Charlie Payne said that his applicant was going to even put in a few charging stations at the DATA CENTER site, and folks could even wash their car afterwards:
In a follow-up question from perceptive Planning Commissioner Johnson, to talk more about the charging stations, Mr. Charlie Payne, ever the fast-talker, smoothly replied, 'And of course, folks would come and pay the charge'. G-R-O-A-N.
What is wrong with people who don't see this slick sell? NoVA residents who now live here would never put up with this to play once gullible Fredericksburg.
And BTW, where's the journalistic standard DISCLAIMER STATEMENT that DATA CENTER industry-employed honchos are on some "Advance' group? and in no way, do they 'influence this 'Advance' article?
Now 'associated' with the 'FXBG Advance': DATA CENTER Regional Attorney Charlie Payne and DATA CENTER developer, Kevin Hughes, out in 'Celebrate Virginia' near the apts which house children who are 'historically marginalized' and will be exposed to the pollutants that are identified as 'silent killers' (Harvard Business Review, 11-5-25: 'Mitigating the Public Health Impact of DATA CENTERS').
No Marty, sadly, you're wrong.
Yes it's nice that people are giving this time of year, and when they see a need. Good for them. I join them on occasion.
Habitat for Humanity is one of my favorite charities, the Salvation Army is the next. I'm strongly considering donating to the Rappahannock Farm next year if my time allows.
But that most certainly does not mean that our whole system should not be questioned. Now, more than ever.
So your basic premises, that we should accept this as the best thing for the common good is one that I strongly question, and consider very open to debate.
You blithely touch on some of the reasons yourself. Though I would posit they warrant a deeper look.
Let's look at some of "giving" that we do.
In Stafford County, we have state mandated "giving" to disabled veterans of tax free personal property taxes. That leads to the rest of us paying their burden for services they enjoy. Often though the disabled veteran may have a higher amount of assets or net income each year than the non-disabled citizen required to support him.
With plausible reports from sources such as the WaPo and the Veteran's Administration itself of unchecked and unquestioned abuses of that designation of disability - it seems the possibility of abuse is there.
Regardless, this "giving" is resulting in some of the highest property rates for the rest of us of anyone in the state.
How many organizations such as churches enjoy tax-free status when the funds coming into them are allowing them to compete against private entities that do not enjoy tax free status while providing the same services - such as child care, community meeting space rentals, gyms, restaurants? And can also slip in sub-legal wages to their employees by claiming that requiring them to pay minimum wage is interference between the church and state?
Not to mention how many of these "non-profits" enjoy tax free status for their lands where these business activities happen. Or use their non-profit fund raising and charity status to launder money used to influence the political process? How many non-profit organizations such as hospitals use their advantage to shield for profit activities?
Then, as mentioned by you, what about the "donors"?
Interesting, when similar news organizations, such as Cardinal News reports on an item that affects a donor source, it has a disclaimer about that someone donating to them as you do, but they also add, as a matter of policy, and it appears practice - a notice not only of the fact of the donation, but that they have a clear policy that such donations do not influence their content. WaPo seems to do the same thing. Appears to be an industry standard.
Why is there no similar disclaimer here? Oversight, or something that is not policy?
And yes, I can see legitimate reasons to question reasons for giving on occasion.
When someone who is angling to gain your water rights starts providing sudden, over the top giving to news organizations that might be reporting on their actions, or non-profits that are vested in the asset they may be taking/controlling - it is reasonable to question why.
But more important than all of that, is this.
Is it working?
By that, I mean the system as a whole.
The rest of the 1st world and most of the 2nd world provides some form of basic, nationalized health care to their citizens.
It's not only considered a basic right, but a sound investment.
Their citizens don't spend every year worrying about whether they need to kiss up to their boss to make sure their 3 year old can get his vaccinations this month, because if they lose their job they lose their family's healthcare.
Or if their house will be repossessed because they needed heart surgery last month. Why do we accept such things?
They don't see billions wasted on middle men gaming the maze of special interest loopholes and regulations that is only found here.
So is providing blind support to such a system where if you do or do not get a kidney transplant is based more upon whether you're photogenic or well connected enough to have a good Go-Fund_Me" page the way to go, or can we do better?
I think we can. I think we should. But we won't until we quit accepting the current status quo.
Should whether our military get paid depend upon if a flush billionaire wants to part with a few millions to make sure they stay loyal to the right kind of people, or should they be paid by taxpayers as decided by law?
I know that when past civilizations started letting private citizens buy their military, they found that military loyal to that individual over the state. So I'm not so sure allowing such "giving" is wise. Looks more like "buying" to me.
You often spout about how poorly we teach our children.
And I ask what are we teaching them when we divvy up life by how popular someone is, or how well they beg rather than what will do the most good for a limited amount of resources?
Certainly not the value of life. But the rather value of popularity. Is that really how we should do distribution of limited assets?
If so, then no wonder we are a nation led by the likes of Trump.
So is the best way to meet our citizens' food needs by providing photo ops on the giving holidays - so everyone can feel good about seeing it the best way - or we would be better just quietly making sure that no kid has to be hungry while they are sitting in class - or for that matter - no parent has to worry about feeding their kid any month - because we see their children as valuable to all of us, not just them?
Is this play for attention by organizations truly giving, or are they getting something in return?
As a Christian, I can't help but be informed by how similar these actions are to praying and then think of Matthew 6:5:
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward."
With that in mind, it's hard to be too impressed by these annual photo ops. Like the man says, they're getting their reward.
We often ask why our children have such contempt for our ideals. Maybe what we should instead be asking what are our ideals?
I know what we say, but when you look at what we do, it's not the same thing.
So maybe we ought to go back to some of these basic premises that we are taking as givens and look at them again.
You give platitudes, and present them as answers.
But I see questions. I think we can do better. I think we should do better.
Others have and do. Why not us?
Answer me that and I'll be glad to hear it.
In the mean time, Merry Christmas.