Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (12689)	5/10/2002 5:46:46 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 21057

Gotcha...check.

To: Lane3 who wrote (12689)	5/10/2002 5:49:54 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

From a e-mail list called "The Outrage" - "GATES LAMBASTED FOR $50M GIFT! Being one of the world's richest people must be great fun most of the time. But it does have its drawbacks, as we discovered while watching BBC World News on May 9. Microsoft main man Bill Gates was interviewed by a BBC correspondent about his personal foundation's $50 million gift to improve the health of poor children in the developing world. But from the tone of the interview, you might have mistaken it for a deposition in Microsoft's antitrust case. Or perhaps a murder trial. 1st question from BBC Correspondent: “Is this a way of salving your conscience?” Outrage comment: We're not really sure that, other than being a tough and very successful businessman, Gates has really done anything that requires “salving” his conscience. Of course, only he knows, but the tone of the question might have been more appropriate if directed at OJ. Gates response's proved that he may be a smart guy, but he should let his PR team handle the media. Instead of angrily denying that he required any such vindication, his mostly irrelevant response was that he enjoyed his foundation work, but he also enjoyed his business endeavors. BBC question: “Do you think private contributions like this are a way of letting government off the hook for this sort of program?” Outrage comment: Instead of saying something along the lines of “Hey Bill, $50 mill for the poor kids, nice job” the correspondent went on the attack, using the common but fallacious theory that any increase in private philanthropy must cause a corresponding decrease in government aid. But the BBC question really implies an even more common, and more dangerous, assumption – that there is some fundamental difference between governments and the people that fund those governments. What is government aid to the poor but tax dollars that have been coerced from unwilling citizens of that government? And if rich citizens like Gates are willing to voluntarily fund those programs, why shouldn't that lessen the tax burden on those who are unable and/or unwilling to fund those programs through taxation?"