I won't disagree with any of that, nor on the face of it do I disagree with Patrick. My only issue with his comment is that he's challenged an argument on the

I won't disagree with any of that, nor on the face of it do I disagree with Patrick. My only issue with his comment is that he's challenged an argument on the basis of a faulty assumption (that charities do good) by introducing a new assumption (that charities might do good, but often do evil) without defending it. So from the standpoint of defensible logic it isn't much better. I see another commentor made a point about the International Tobacco Growers Association. That's all I was looking for... something we can sink our teeth into that allows the skeptics among us to reject Conclusion A for Conclusion B.