Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates, Time Magazine "Person of the Year"
klubar writes "Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, were named Time Magazine "Persons of the Year". He was joined in this honor with Irish rocker Bono-all being named for being "Good Samaritans" who made a difference."
Mark 12:41-44
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.
42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything-- all she had to live on."
As much as I understand the necessity of patting people on their back for doing anything at all with their insanely huge wealth - to stop them turning away sneering at the 'ingratitude' of the world, I can think of a lot of "Good Samaritans" who better deserved Person of the Year
Or maybe Roman Abramovich is a model citizen, because, while he wastes his money on football teams, yachts, and whores, at least he hasn't made (gasp! horror!) a closed-source operating system? That's really what it's about, isn't it?
I really have to give Melinda Gates credit for influencing Bill to start that foundation because, from what I read, Bill didn't donate anything until after he married her.
No data, no cry
The same amount I've raised using illegal business practices.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I'm not sure I'd be smiling as much as Bill is if Bono were standing between me and my wife with such a smug look on his face.
-Pinkoir
Though I can't help but feel he's giving our money to charity...
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The point is that they pick people who have made a big difference in the world, which is how billy g slipped in there.
Funny how they missed bin Laden in 2001, who turned the world upside down, in favour of Giuliani, who for all his virtues, was just a mayor. Obviously they choked on following through on their own stated criteria when it was too close to home.
guiliani was an interesting choice because he showed the modern day merits of an autocratic approach to governmental policy. Since, the country has shifted to follow that example. New Yorkers bristled under his increase in police force size, his abject and purposeful alienation of minorities, his notions of pervasive policing and his embrace of technology and subversive measures to undermine crime. It was these very policies that New Yorkers hated that helped the city rebound so quickly from 9/11. The guy ruled with an iron fist.
Interestingly enough, There's a guy in New York named Eliot Spitzer who uses similar tactics. He's the attorney general and he's the scourge of wall street.
But that's besides the point. What I think is interesting is that much of the banter is about whether or not Gates deserves this "honor" as opposed to whether or not the Time's Man of the Year is actually relevant in 2005. I've had friends who got into publishing and journalism after school... and they weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Assuming more of the same in the industry, I'm not prone to taking much seriously when journalists stray from objectivity and decide to weigh in with opinion. Which is to say, I'm not much of a fan of journalism. I'd rather they turn the cameras on, shoot some footage, and let me decide for myself.
Forget that Bill might or might not be worthy of the award... more pertinent is that the award no longer has merit. Who the fuck cares what Time editors think?
un burrito me trampeó.
Actually, many would argue that Giuliani made more of a difference than Bin Laden did on Sept 11th. I would agree with them, and would many (if not most) others.
It is always easier to destroy rather than build. It is easier to tear down than rebuild. Most mayors would not have shown the leadership that Giuliani did. See New Orleans, use the mayor or governer as examples. Not bad people, but simply not up to the task and not having the leadership skills needed to cope. You and I would probably not done much better.
So Giuliani *did* make a difference, in making what Bin Laden attempted to do less meaningful. Distructive, yes. Painful, yes. Did it make the US back down and do what he wanted? No.
"Giuliani was just a mayor" is the *whole point* of why he got Person of the Year. He wasn't supposed to be capable of displaying this kind of leadership, yet he did. He is "just a mayor" that did more to comfort Americans all over the US, and deal with the real issues, make the hard decisions, and kept a cool head he entire time. Perfect? No, but I can't think of anyone else that could have done better, nor anyone else more deserving in 2001.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The link doesn't actually say how much of that came from Bill himself. Nor how much of a tax break he got for whatever he did contribute.
Gates fund the foundation himself. Or, I should say, Bill and Melinda fund the foundation themselves.
Tax break? You're kidding me, right? Even if he's in the 35% tax bracket, he's still giving away far more money than he gets from a tax deduction. Besides, you can't get back more than you owe in taxes - I don't think that even Bill Gates can ring up a $28 billion tax bill.
Incidentally, one of the positions that Gates has taken on our "progressive" income tax is that the rich should pay more than the poor in taxes. So has his father (who's a long way from the poorhouse himself).
You know, you can find all this out through Google...
-h-
He arguably robbed from the rich and gave to the poor...
Stood up to the Man
and gave him what for!
The Man of the Year
that all Slashdot hates,
The hero of Redmond
the man they call Gates!
Why is the percentage of your net worth the right way to measure generosity? Bill Gates can give that much money away without it affecting his lifestyle in the slightest. You think he notices the difference between having $60bn and having $90bn? Is it really so generous to give that much money away when you don't even notice it's gone? He could give twice that much money away and live like a king for the rest of his life.
Normal people couldn't give away half their net worth without losing their home. That alone should clue you in that percentage of net worth isn't the right way to measure generosity.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha