[lentulusgracchus]

I did consider it, and I think that there is a massive disconnect in eleemosynary institutions between donors and their intentions, on the one hand, and the left-wing, opportunistic termites who inserted themselves into the apparatuses in the 50's and have progressively (so to speak) radicalized the practical purposes to which the trust funds have been put for the last 30 years.

Is that clearer?

Intentions of the grantor seldom matter, once the ink is dry, and the intermediaries can and do play fast, loose, and hard with OPM.

[Carry_Okie]

I did consider it, and I think that there is a massive disconnect in eleemosynary institutions between donors and their intentions, on the one hand, and the left-wing, opportunistic termites who inserted themselves into the apparatuses in the 50's and have progressively (so to speak) radicalized the practical purposes to which the trust funds have been put for the last 30 years.

Is that clearer?

Clearer but wrong, both historically and ideologically. The donors are not the great industrialists who produced that wealth, but are products of the same educational institutions that produced the recipients. Said industrialists were too busy to raise their kids. The scions know damned well that they lack the ability of their forebears, depending instead upon smart lawyers in tow who rig the concentration of power as a form of one-stop shopping for regulatory favors.

Consider any number of particulars, whether the adoption of MTBE, low-particulate diesel with a 94% reduction when the industry could do 90% but for Exxon/Mobil's patent, or Carter's EO killing the nuclear industry by banning reprocessing. These were actions that benefited exclusively those same donors.

Moreover, there is no such disconnect between the likes of Ted Turner and his pathetic minions. He's the kind of guy who funds the Ruckus Society to protest at the globalist WTO meetings he attends. So, yes, I do think you've got it wrong.