posted
Woke up to this news this morning (which is what happens when you fall asleep with the TV on, I suppose). Kind of feeling neutral on the Gates' being there - I know they do a lot of humanitarian work but, you know, I've never been a big Bill Gates fan.
But I'm thrilled that Bono was named. I think he has really stepped up and done some incredible work, if for nothing else than to get people who probably wouldn't talk to each other in a reasonable manner in normal cirucmstances to dialogue on important issues.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a big fan of big business, but I do apprecciate the Gates. I think they are good stewards of their charity dollars. They help save lives around the world and improve the educational opportunities for the youth of our county.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I can't stand Bono: he's preachy, self-righteous and disgustingly egocentric, and basically makes the democratic party look like a bunch of jerks.
The Gates family, on the other hand, is fantastic.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a link to the CNN article about the selection of the Persons of the Year by Time Magazine.
Apparently, Bono's work was instrumental in convincing the G8 nations to grant debt relief to some of the poorest nations in Africa this year. He is active in, and in fact I believe he founded or co-founded, a pair of humanitarian organizations that focus on issues related to poverty, hunger, and illness in Africa. From what I've read, he hasn't gone the usual celebrity route of just lending his name and persona to a cause but has gone out and educated himself on his issues and then taken positive steps to see that they are dealt with. In other words, while so many other people sit and moan about how bad things are, he has gone out and actually done something about the problems he is concerned about.
Edited to add: About the issue of egocentricity...As far as I'm concerned, Bono has enough talent that he has a right to be somewhat egocentric. Anyway, I think he has a lot more right to be that way than a bunch of other people in the public eye, not only in entertainment but also in politics, who appear to me to be a lot more self-centered than he is. Besides this selection is about the work that he has fairly obviously accomplished, not about whether or not he thinks a lot of himself.
posted
It looks like Bono was nominated for the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for his various charitable activities.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You misunderstood: I admit that Bono has done a good deal of charitable work and has utilized his celebrity in a positive way in many instances - especially in the last few years.
I just can't stand him as a person, and I think he's borderline talentless as a musician - especially in the last decade *shudder*.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bono does look kinda odd IMO, but I've held judgment until I know something more substaintial. And I like Bono's music so far. Nothing too edgy.
Helping Africa is the only sane thing Western countries can do since they screwed the place up to begin with when it was occupied by all the various European empires not so long ago. I had a geography teacher say that the state of the African continent is a disaster (AIDs in particular) and that it is an embarrassment to us all that our governments havn't done more to help them. So I am very glad Bono is helping them and I have the highest respect for him for it. Where I've never thought much about the Celebs who fight for cause x or y before.
I have no respect for Bill Gates as his history is full of stealing other people's technology from the very beginning (DOS is a biggie...), underselling the competitors by using money he already had (he had very wealthy parents who helped him start off and taught him to be a ruthless businessman), and then he promptly jacked up the prices.
Recently his company has avoided negative press. But it wasn't so long ago that Windows included a bastardized version of Java and when Sun sued, MS pulled it completely from Windows, which then Sun sued again. It is standard MS practice to include technology from other companies and make it incompatible with other systems (HTML and JavaScript anyone?).
Not to mention the whole antitrust lawsuit which they lost.
I don't imagine it is hard for him to part with his money as he has so much he can afford many plasma screens for all of his rooms that are dedicated to showing rotating artwork.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be a waste if he didn't have 'em. He bought the digital copyrights to most of the masterpieces in major museums and galleries around the world. He also owns around a third of all commercially copyrighted photographs.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't imagine it is hard for him to part with his money as he has so much he can afford many plasma screens for all of his rooms that are dedicated to showing rotating artwork.
Wow...given what you've said about Bill Gates, I would argue that it is extremely difficult for him to part with his money.
Now I just have to figure out why he's donated almost $10 billion to charity since the inception of his foundation, and roughly $1.2 billion just in the last year...what a penny-piching bastard!!
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just can't stand him as a person, and I think he's borderline talentless as a musician - especially in the last decade *shudder*.
[pet peeve]It's fair for you not to be able to stand him as a person, but to call him borderline talentless just because you don't like his music bugs me. There are plenty of talented people who make music I don't like. That doesn't make them talentless.[/pet peeve]
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never really been a huge fan of Bill Gates myself, but I can't deny all the good that he's tried to accomplish. There are a lot of honest business people that would rather hoard their money than use it for a good, altruistic cause. Gates may not be very honest, but at least he's spending a lot of his money wisely.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we should be honoring insanely rich people for their generosity. The people who deserve the honor are the ones who give out of their scarcity rather than their excess. The widow's mite and all that.
I'd be more impressed if they secretly gave to charity and were found out by some enterprising reporter.
I don't like Bono either. If I were to praise a celebrity humanitarian, Angelina Jolie would be higher on my list.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Bill Gates has donated something like 50% of his net worth, and plans to have donated all of it by the time he dies. I'd say that's rather impressive regardless of how much his net worth adds up to.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think we should be honoring insanely rich people for their generosity.
Their generosity is diminished because they have the capacity to give so extravagantly?
What kind of logic is this? Does the nobility of charity only exist for those who suffer by giving? Sure, the widow contributed her last $5, and we're thankful for her generosity, but it didn't fund an AIDS research program servicing an entire continent, or do any of the other things that the Gates Foundation has done.
My point is this: While both acts of charity are good, kind, and wonderful things, the sheer scope and scale of the Gates Foundation charities has the potential to make a profound difference in many peoples lives.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Their generosity is diminished because they have the capacity to give so extravagantly?
My logic is based on percentages. When 10 billion dollars isn't even 10% of your income, then yes, I think their giving is diminished when compared to the poor who give a higher percentage of their income. And does it need to be so public?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My logic is based on percentages. When 10 billion dollars isn't even 10% of your income, then yes, I think their giving is diminished when compared to the poor who give a higher percentage of their income.
So, if I had two dollars and gave away one, and you had ten dollars and gave away five, then your charity is diminished by mine simply by the virtue that I have less to give? Even if my dollar wasn't enough to help one person, and your five dollars could help two or three people?
I just can't understand your logic. I understand giving when it hurts to give. I just can't make the leap from that to your conclusion. Maybe it's because I reject the idealized view of charity that you're describing. Honestly, how many people donate 10% of their net worth every year (excluding church tithing)?
quote:And does it need to be so public?
Yes, it does. In order to push through some of the initiatives that their foundation has proposed it was necessary to divulge who the money would come from and how much could be expected. Nobody had heard of the originial foundations that existed prior to 2000, but they were still responsible for roughly $5 billion in endowments during the 90's.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your example is still 50% of the money being given from the $2 and the $10.
My problem is with everyone seeming to have the attitude, oh wow! look at how generous they are! They're such great people. Well, there have been enough comments on this very thread to cast doubt on how Gates got that money in the first place. Was he always generous with his money? Or is it only now that he can afford anything and everything else he wants?
And I never said a lot of poor people give excessively, but I think more highly of the ones that do. If they ever become rich, I bet the effect they have will be substantial. There are plenty of quiet philanthropist millionaires and billionaires. Why not put them on the cover of Time? (Well, who would recognize them?)
Yay for Gates giving money. Surely the world is a better place.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your example is still 50% of the money being given from the $2 and the $10.
And yet, you've still given 500% more than I did.
I'm not saying we should canonize Bill Gates, but for someone who is contributing an obscene amount of money to charitable organizations he tends to take more flack over it than most.
quote: There are plenty of quiet philanthropist millionaires and billionaires
Well, we think. We don't know because we don't hear anything about them...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand giving when it hurts to give. I just can't make the leap from that to your conclusion.
It's worth noting that a lot of Bill Gates' "charity" work -- although I'll readily admit not all of it -- involves handing out free or discounted software licenses for Microsoft Windows. By that standard, drug dealers are also charitable.
---------
Actually, I think all the choices this year are deplorable. It says a lot about this year -- and a lot about Time -- that THESE were the best they could come up with.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that I think is deceptive about percentages is that it doesn't accurately reflect the impact on one's lifestyle and means of living. For example, donating 50% of my income is surely going to have a larger impact on my lifestyle than the impact that Gates will have by donating 50% of his income. So in that sense, yes, I do think their generosity is slightly diminished by their wealth.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the Tsunami last year to Rita and more this year I find it not surprising that the "Man of the Year" is people donating money to worthy causes. Record donations have flown in around the world, and in the US in particular this year, not counting those of the wealthiest.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's worth noting that a lot of Bill Gates' "charity" work -- although I'll readily admit not all of it -- involves handing out free or discounted software licenses for Microsoft Windows. By that standard, drug dealers are also charitable.
While this is interesting (and true) it is also totally irrelevant to the discussion. Donating $10 billion dollars and handing out free licenses of software are two separate issues.
quote: donating 50% of my income is surely going to have a larger impact on my lifestyle than the impact that Gates will have by donating 50% of his income.
I don't think that the measure of how meaningful a contribution is should be based on how it affects the contributor. I can't believe that all charity is based on the idea of enduring personal suffering in order to give to others. That somehow, by the simple fact that you have less, your chartible deeds are elevated above those who have more and are able to give more.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps a better comparison would be comparing a rich person with his poorer past self.
Was the rich person just as charitable when he was poor?
Obviously not all rich people start out poor, so the comparison would only work for some of them.
There are plenty of people who are poor now or even just lower-middle income, and they say we would give if we were rich. But they don't give now, when they still could, even though it wouldn't be as much.
If these billionaires were reverted back to working class, would they still give?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help but thing that Bill Gates is buying public appreciation. I have a hard time imagining him being kind and caring person.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If these billionaires were reverted back to working class, would they still give?
I don't think this is fair.
Yes, he's a splendiferously rich man, but that doesn't make him necessarily or intrinsicly immoral or bad, it just makes him very rich, and therefore in a position (unlike my change) to actually do things. You cannot say "if this were the case would he" because it's not the case.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: can't help but thing that Bill Gates is buying public appreciation. I have a hard time imagining him being kind and caring person.
If it saves the lives of hundreds of thousands of children in the poorest countries, I don't care why he does it.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it saves the lives of hundreds of thousands of children in the poorest countries, I don't care why he does it.
Exactly! His motivations can never be known. The good actions that come from his donations are a tangible reality that should be appreciated at face value.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puh-leeze... A fifth of the world's population lives on less than a dollar a day, less than what is spent raising FirstWorld cattle. The concept of folks who can afford their own computers and their own Internet connections suffering deprivation through charitable giving is.....I can't even think of an appropriate descriptive. But considering that I would be better off giving away the money that I spend on Doritos/Cokes/etc, I'm certainly not gonna pat myself on the back for suffering more than Bill and Melinda Gates.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, there have been enough comments on this very thread to cast doubt on how Gates got that money in the first place. Was he always generous with his money? Or is it only now that he can afford anything and everything else he wants?
I haven't read this Time article yet, but I remember reading a feature on B&M Gates a few years ago, and according to that article, Melinda Gates is the driving force behind their charitable giving. Apparently his father had been telling him for years he needed to do more philanthropically with his fortune but Bill just didn't really care; it was his wife that really got the ball rolling.
Neither Bill Gates nor Bono are my personal favorites but I'm very glad that they are both focusing energy on giving back. We and the rest of the world need their help.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the point here is that neither Bono or Bill and Melinda Gates have to do this. They could just go on their merry ways and become more famous and make more money. It isn't their job to attempt to see poverty eliminated or AIDS controlled or cured or anything. But they've stepped up to the plate even though they don't have to, and that is admirable. I agree with Romany...I don't really care why they are doing these things. If they use their celebrity or their money to make a positive contribution to the world, then they deserve kudos.
God only knows, most of the people whose job it presumably is to make the world a safe and prosperous place for everyone *coughpoliticianscough* sure have made a mess of things. Or are we just giving up and admitting that the politicans of the world (no, I'm not Bush-bashing - I'm leader-bashing in general) are in it for the power and wealth for themselves and their friends, and really have no obligation to make the world a better place for all of us?
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven't read this Time article yet, but I remember reading a feature on B&M Gates a few years ago, and according to that article, Melinda Gates is the driving force behind their charitable giving. Apparently his father had been telling him for years he needed to do more philanthropically with his fortune but Bill just didn't really care; it was his wife that really got the ball rolling.
She may have gotten the ball rolling, but I don't think anyone (least of all a man as powerful as Bill Gates) would give as much as Bill has without some innate desire to do so. He gives a LOT of money - and not just a lot as compared to what an ordinary person is capable of giving.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if I would call it the deal of the century. It wasn't exactly the best operating system in the world.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
And after reading lots of history on the matter, I actually hate Bill Gates less. Anyway, here is the good stuff (from here)
1980 (QDOS) Microsoft was sued (over QDOS) by Seattle Computer Products (out of court settlement) below 1982 (DOS) Gary Kildall of Digital Research sued Microsoft & IBM- DR wins monetary damages, and the right to clone MS-DOS. 1985 (Windows) Apple sued Microsoft over Windows 1.0 ( out of court settlement) Apple allowed Microsoft to lease Macintosh OS. In the contract (Microsoft put in) they would be able to copy future versions of the Mac. (below) 1988 (Windows) Apple sued Microsoft over Windows 2.0 (lost, then appeals, out of court settlement in 1997) Microsoft paid ??? to Apple, brought Apple stock, and continued making software for the Macintosh. (below) 1989 (VMS) Digital sued Microsoft (over code of Digital VMS) eventually paid $150 million & formed an Alliance with Digital (below) 1990 XEROX sued Apple (lost in court) Appears Apple had XEROX help, and Microsoft copied it from Apple? (below) 1990 (OS/2) Federal Trade Commission launches a probe into possible collusion between Microsoft & IBM in the PC software market. 1994- Stac Electronics sued Microsoft (patent infringement, for DOS 6.0 ) and won $83 million. 1996 (DR-DOS) Caldera lawsuit - settlement between $350 million and $500 million. 1998 AT&T suing Microsoft in 1998 for breach of contract and intentional interference over AT&T's Advanced Server for Unix, a product for integrating Windows and Unix. 1998 (Windows) The Dept of Justice and twenty U.S. states sue Microsoft. 2004 (Windows) European states sues Microsoft (fined $613 million) It appears, the trend being in these Microsoft lawsuits, Microsoft settles with the company & then forms an alliance with them. Go this this site - Microsoft the Company The House Monopoly Built (has a list of lawsuits 2003-5, 2002-6, 2001-5, 2000-5, 1999-1, 1998-22, 1997-1, 1995-2, 1994-1, 1982-1) US JUSTICE DEPT As far back as 1990 Microsoft was under investigation by the Justice Dept. 1990-1994 (Collusion between IBM & Microsoft in the PC software market) - Forbids Microsoft from using its operating system dominance to squelch competition. 1994-1995 (Microsoft merger w/ Intuit) Microsoft scraps its merger plan. 1997 (Microsoft - settle lawsuit w/Apple Computer & invests 150 million in Apple) but Justice Dept says Internet streaming technologies, would squelch competition. 1998 (Bundling of Internet Explorer) Microsoft gives computer makers freedom to install Windows 95 without an Internet Explorer icon. 1998-2002 (U.S. Justice Department and 20 state attorneys general file an antitrust suit against Microsoft, charging the company with abusing its market power to thwart competition, including Netscape) In 2001 Breakup of Microsoft is overruled.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
