The American Red Cross has $613MM in debt. But it also has $3.5BB in assets. In addition to the aforementioned debt, there are $1.2BB in additional liabilities, for total net assets of:

$1,672,466,000

Source: KPMG consolidated financial statement, June 30 2009.

http://www.redcross.org/www-files/Documents/pdf/corppubs/FY0...

There is an enormous difference between having debt and being in debt.

To me, posting this article in 2007 taught me two lessons:

#1: The goal of good writing is not to be understood, but rather to not be misunderstood.

Judging by the hundreds of angry comments on that original link, I failed miserably. At the time, nobody read my little blog, so I didn't expect anyone to see this post. I was really just writing it to answer a few of my Rails friends' questions. I didn't brace it for public attack.

#2: The public you is not you.

I'm a mediocre programmer, trying to improve, and at the time just trying to make my website the way I wanted it. So it kinda hurt at first to read hundreds of fellow programmers saying I'm the biggest idiot to walk the earth.

Then I just realized that my post should have been written clearer, and the reason people were so upset is because it sounded like I was attacking this framework/language that they had spent so many hundreds of hours learning. It had nothing to do with me. Only I know my real programming skills, so their comments were not really about me.

Ever since then I don't let comments get to me, either way. Neither praise nor criticism should be taken personally. It's just feedback on the post/subject. Useful for learning how not to be misunderstood, but has nothing to do with you.

Laugh. Be happy. Learn from this that you don't have to make something people want that nobody else could make because it's so complex and you're awesome. You just have to make something people want.

edit: I remembered the news.google.com trick:

By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO

Google Inc.'s startling threat to withdraw from China was an intensely personal decision, drawing its celebrated founders and other top executives into a debate over the right way to confront the issues of censorship and cyber security.

The blog post Tuesday that revealed Google's very public response to what it called a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China" was crafted over a period of weeks, with heavy involvement from Google's co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

For the two men, China has always been a sensitive topic. Mr. Brin has long confided in friends and Google colleagues of his ambivalence in doing business in China, noting that his early childhood in Russia exacerbated the moral dilemma of cooperating with government censorship, people who have spoken to him said. Over the years, Mr. Brin has served as Google's unofficial corporate conscience, the protector of its motto "Don't be Evil."

The investigation into the cyber intrusion began weeks ago, although how Google detected it remains unclear. As Google employees gathered more evidence they believed linked the attack to China and Chinese authorities, Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, along with Messrs. Page and Brin, began discussing how they should respond, entering into an intense debate over whether it was better to stay in China and do what they can to change the regime from within, or whether to leave, according to people familiar with the discussions. A Google spokesman said Messrs. Page, Brin and Schmidt wouldn't comment.

Mr. Schmidt made the argument he long has, according to these people, namely that it is moral to do business in China in an effort to try to open up the regime. Mr. Brin strenuously argued the other side, namely that the company had done enough trying and that it could no longer justify censoring its search results.

How the debate ultimately resolved itself remains unclear.The three ultimately agreed they should disclose the attack publicly, trying to break with what they saw as a conspiratorial culture of companies keeping silent about attacks of this nature, according to one person familiar with the matter.

Soon, Google's vice president of public policy and communications, Rachel Whetstone, began crafting and revising a number of versions of a possible statement the company planned to release publicly, these people said, sharing it with the three.

The top three agreed that in addition to discussing the attack, the blog post should contain some language about human rights, the strongest statement of which is a clause in the penultimate paragraph of the post.

The section said they had reached the decision to re-evaluate their business in China after considering the attacks "combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web."

Concerned about potential retribution against Google employees in China, the founders and their advisors agreed to include a line saying that the move was "driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China."

To further protect Chinese employees on the ground, executives didn't notify the vast majority of Google's China team until a few minutes before the post went up.

Disagreements among Google's top troika aren't unusual. Last year, for example, Mr. Schmidt told reporters that he had long opposed Mr. Page's desire to build a Web browser but ultimately came around.

Google's conduct in China has long incited broader geopolitical debate over whether Western companies should do business in the country. In 2006, after Google said it would censor its China search engine, Google was called to defend the move before the U.S. House of Representatives, which began contemplating legislation that would prohibit U.S. companies from cooperating with Chinese officials, except in certain circumstances.

On Tuesday, Google said it could no longer abide by Chinese government requirements that it filter the search results on its site in the country, Google.cn. The company said it will be discussing the matter with the Chinese government, stating that it realized that its move may mean that it will have to shut down the Web site and potentially its offices in China.

The question is whether other U.S. companies will agree with Google's definition of evil.Google's decision conflicts with the strategies of many U.S. companies to deepen their involvement in China, which is both a key market for their potential exports as well as a source for many manufactured goods on which U.S. companies and consumers depend.

Veteran observers of trade between the countries suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has little leverage to press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues.

Some expressions of support for Google's position flowed in from around the world, including from consumers in China as well as some U.S. companies—including rival Yahoo Inc.—and politicians. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday issued a statement saying Google's allegations "raise very serious concerns and questions," and that "we look to the Chinese government for an explanation."

Odds are high Google could be left largely on its own in taking concrete steps to confront the Chinese government. Veteran observers of trade between the countries suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has very little leverage to press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues.

Besides the Google.cn Web site, Google has a range of other business initiatives and partnerships in China that could be affected by its decision. By snubbing Chinese authorities so publicly, the company risks government retaliation against itself or its partners. The decision also affects local competitors who could benefit from any retreat.Shares of Google's biggest Chinese rival, Baidu Inc., surged following the news.

Google's blog post Tuesday said cyber-attacks on its infrastructure resulted in "the theft of intellectual property," stating that it found evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. It said other U.S. companies were targeted by similar attacks, and dozens of Gmail accounts around the world had separately been "routinely" accessed by third parties it did not identify.

If you really did, then you wouldn't have even written this post.

Like Dave Winer, I am also 54 and absolutely do not care what anyone else thinks about it.

When I first started out I quickly rose through the enterprise ranks and was never taken seriously because of my age. As a wimpy looking nerd, I had always been underestimated by others and I found a way to use that to my advantage. When the time was right, I would just shoot them between the eyes with the right solution. My young age didn't matter.

Fast forward 30 years. I never notice age discrimination. It may be there, but I simply don't notice it. I think being in IT and in my 50's is a tremendous advantage.

For every issue I have to address, I have that many more instances of experience dealing with something like that. Many more iterations of similar patterns to draw from.

IT is one field where you can actually get better with age. You don't have to run fast or carry heavy loads, but you do have to think nimbly and get things done, both of which get better with lots of practice.

IT is also one field where "what you get done" is more important than "who you are". This is always good news for us hackers and makers, regardless of age, sex, background, or anything else.

I am currently writing the best software of my life, by far. Not just how I'm writing it, but what I'm writing. I have seen so much that I have a natural instinct for what is needed, what works, and how to best go about it. New technologies keep me fresh and engaged. I feel perfectly at home here at hn even though I'm older than most of you. I can't imagine a better place to be, with 21st century technology and 30 years experience!

To me it's odd that someone as accomplished as Dave Winer doesn't feel the same way. Then again, maybe it's just state of mind.

My grandmother taught me one of the most important lessons of my life, "If you look hard enough for trouble, you'll probably find it."

There is negativity everywhere, about ageism and a million other things. The secret is that it's only data to process as you choose. I have decided to ignore it and continue to do what I love and love what I do. I suspect that Dave should as well.