With the horrors that hurricane Katrina left on the United States still too vivid in our memories, our president took no time to ensure that the latest natural disaster, the fires in California, did not lower his respectability any more. Which is good, if desiring public respect is the only thing that motivates Bush to do the right thing, so be it. I would rather that than he do nothing.
Of course, there are differences between the two disasters. Katrina was poised to damage the poor, African-American parts of New Orleans the most; whereas, the first region hit by the fires in California was Malibu ( A traditionally rich, white area). Of course by now other regions all over the state have been threatened; some of which invariably hold poorer, less white people.
But, who am I to sit here and make assumptions about out president's motives? Or to question racial equality in our great nation?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
The New Philanthropy
In his groundbreaking essay, "The Gospel of Wealth", Andrew Carnegie sought to cement philanthropy as an unyielding facet of wealth: "Thus is the problem of Rich and Poor to be solved. The law of accumulation will be left free; the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee of the poor; entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself."
As one of the richest men in the world at the turn of the twentieth century, Carnegie was in a place to assert philanthropy as a business of the rich and not just of nations. And although that trend continued to row steadily since Carnegie began it, in the past seven years, philanthropy has increased exponentially. Since 2000, when Bill Gates set up his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the foundation has given away $29 billion. Now, Gates works full time at his foundation and, through his efforts, has inspired people such as Warren Buffet (who matches Gates's donations to the Gated Foundation up to 1.5 billion dollars a year) to donate their enormous fortunes.
This new era of philanthropy--as spearheaded by people such as Gates, Buffet, Bill Clinton and countless other celebrities (such as Angelina Jolie and Bono)--I label as 'The New Philanthropy'. I define 'New Philanthropy' as philanthropy that includes four important aspects:
1) It acts separate from any established government.
2) It uses the celebrity and wealth of individuals to increase societal giving through example.
3) It is funded primarily through "new money".
4) It focuses on every type of plight (from domestic to international; from human to environmental) rather than very specified and localized plight.
There are; however, detractors of these new philanthropists detail who argue that there are three reasons why this new philanthropy will fail:
1) Many of them (the celebrities, in particular) do not have the knowledge or experience of economics or politics to take real action on a global level.
2) The philanthropists are too swayed by trends in philanthropy to make a sustained difference.
3) Simply throwing trillions of dollars at problems--the amount estimated by Boston College that will be donated by Americans between 1997 and 2007 is between $5 and $7 billion--does not fix the world.
I disagree with the above arguments and will now seek to disprove them.
Three weeks ago, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) had their annual get together in which many of the world's most important politicians and businessmen met under Bill Clinton's watch to not only talk about national issues but to act on them. The Economist writes, "Mr Clinton says that he founded the CGI because he got fed up with attending meetings that were all talk and no action (did somebody mention the UN?). So the 1,000 or so attendees at the CGI are required to pledge to take specific actions, and are told that failure to honor those pledges means they don’t get invited back. Around 65% of attendees at the CGI are from the private sector. So far, there have been nearly 600 pledges, worth a combined $10 billion" ("The Clinton Factor"). Clinton, seen nowadays as much as a celebrity as he is a former president, brings an intelligence and drive to the new philanthropy that overshadows his successes as president.
Clinton is one of the three archetypes of "New Philanthropy". He belongs in the category that I will label as the "ex-politico". Others in this category include Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. While these figures do not necessarily have the money to privately fund all their projects; their experience brings the knowledge to not only appropriate the funds, but also to garner critical support and media attention. I recently wrote on a trip to Darfur by Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. This trip required the delicacy and expertise of such ex-politicos to not enrage the government of Sudan. However, the trip would have been impossible without the second archetype, "the Tycoon"
A Tycoon is a wealthy, "new-money" businessman who, in the prime of their wealth, has decided to focus on philanthropy. The titans of tycoonery include Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Richard Branson. In fact, it was Branson who funded Carter's and Tutu's trip to Darfur. These individuals add the money into the new philanthropy. Clearly, these individuals are also extremely smart and command much credibility for their success.
The third stereotype is "the Celebrity". These individuals, including Oprah, Bono and Angelina Jolie, use their vast celebrity and public adoration to promote their causes and stimulate public philanthropy.
As can be seen from the three archetypes, the main arguments against "New Philanthropy" are unfounded:
1)Many of them (the celebrities, in particular) do not have the knowledge or experience of economics or politics to take real action on a global level.
--Many of the "celebrities" who might not have the traditional knowledge of the world travel the world in order to understand it better.
--One of the man objectives of the "ex-politico" is to provided the philanthropic efforts with the knowledge to make sure everything is done.
2) The philanthropists are too swayed by trends in philanthropy to make a sustained difference.
-- "ex-politicos" like Al Gore--whose thirty years of warnings and eight years of crusading on Global Warming has won him a Nobel Prize--have proved that people can keep a sustained effort on specific causes
-- "Tycoons" set up funds with enough money to sustain work on multiple causes at the same time.
3) Simply throwing trillions of dollars at problems--the amount estimated by Boston College that will be donated by Americans between 1997 and 2007 is between $5 and $7 billion--does not fix the world.
--All three stereotypes have done much more than simply throw money at the problem. It is their expertise, support from the public and their willingness to challenge governments as much as their money that make them so valuable.
So, what is traditionally said to detract form "New Philanthropy" is not really true. But, is "New Philanthropy" really that good?
The answer is yes! The "New Philanthropists" can do what governments cannot. Their distance from established goevernments means that they can act without fear of international backlash (The US could not, for example, send "ex-politicos" into Sudan to criticize the Sudanese government).
And efforts by the "New Philanthropy" do not go un-lauded. Time named Bill and Melinda Gates, as well as Bono as their 'Persons of the Year' in 2004. The Nobel Committee recently awarded Al Gore and countless other media outlets and award foundations are recognizing the efforts of the "New Philanthropists".
I began this post with a quote by Andrew Carnegie; so, who better to end it with: "Such, in my opinion, is the true Gospel concerning Wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the Rich and the Poor, and to bring "Peace on earth, among men Good Will."
As one of the richest men in the world at the turn of the twentieth century, Carnegie was in a place to assert philanthropy as a business of the rich and not just of nations. And although that trend continued to row steadily since Carnegie began it, in the past seven years, philanthropy has increased exponentially. Since 2000, when Bill Gates set up his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the foundation has given away $29 billion. Now, Gates works full time at his foundation and, through his efforts, has inspired people such as Warren Buffet (who matches Gates's donations to the Gated Foundation up to 1.5 billion dollars a year) to donate their enormous fortunes.
This new era of philanthropy--as spearheaded by people such as Gates, Buffet, Bill Clinton and countless other celebrities (such as Angelina Jolie and Bono)--I label as 'The New Philanthropy'. I define 'New Philanthropy' as philanthropy that includes four important aspects:
1) It acts separate from any established government.
2) It uses the celebrity and wealth of individuals to increase societal giving through example.
3) It is funded primarily through "new money".
4) It focuses on every type of plight (from domestic to international; from human to environmental) rather than very specified and localized plight.
There are; however, detractors of these new philanthropists detail who argue that there are three reasons why this new philanthropy will fail:
1) Many of them (the celebrities, in particular) do not have the knowledge or experience of economics or politics to take real action on a global level.
2) The philanthropists are too swayed by trends in philanthropy to make a sustained difference.
3) Simply throwing trillions of dollars at problems--the amount estimated by Boston College that will be donated by Americans between 1997 and 2007 is between $5 and $7 billion--does not fix the world.
I disagree with the above arguments and will now seek to disprove them.
Three weeks ago, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) had their annual get together in which many of the world's most important politicians and businessmen met under Bill Clinton's watch to not only talk about national issues but to act on them. The Economist writes, "Mr Clinton says that he founded the CGI because he got fed up with attending meetings that were all talk and no action (did somebody mention the UN?). So the 1,000 or so attendees at the CGI are required to pledge to take specific actions, and are told that failure to honor those pledges means they don’t get invited back. Around 65% of attendees at the CGI are from the private sector. So far, there have been nearly 600 pledges, worth a combined $10 billion" ("The Clinton Factor"). Clinton, seen nowadays as much as a celebrity as he is a former president, brings an intelligence and drive to the new philanthropy that overshadows his successes as president.
Clinton is one of the three archetypes of "New Philanthropy". He belongs in the category that I will label as the "ex-politico". Others in this category include Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. While these figures do not necessarily have the money to privately fund all their projects; their experience brings the knowledge to not only appropriate the funds, but also to garner critical support and media attention. I recently wrote on a trip to Darfur by Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. This trip required the delicacy and expertise of such ex-politicos to not enrage the government of Sudan. However, the trip would have been impossible without the second archetype, "the Tycoon"
A Tycoon is a wealthy, "new-money" businessman who, in the prime of their wealth, has decided to focus on philanthropy. The titans of tycoonery include Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Richard Branson. In fact, it was Branson who funded Carter's and Tutu's trip to Darfur. These individuals add the money into the new philanthropy. Clearly, these individuals are also extremely smart and command much credibility for their success.
The third stereotype is "the Celebrity". These individuals, including Oprah, Bono and Angelina Jolie, use their vast celebrity and public adoration to promote their causes and stimulate public philanthropy.
As can be seen from the three archetypes, the main arguments against "New Philanthropy" are unfounded:
1)Many of them (the celebrities, in particular) do not have the knowledge or experience of economics or politics to take real action on a global level.
--Many of the "celebrities" who might not have the traditional knowledge of the world travel the world in order to understand it better.
--One of the man objectives of the "ex-politico" is to provided the philanthropic efforts with the knowledge to make sure everything is done.
2) The philanthropists are too swayed by trends in philanthropy to make a sustained difference.
-- "ex-politicos" like Al Gore--whose thirty years of warnings and eight years of crusading on Global Warming has won him a Nobel Prize--have proved that people can keep a sustained effort on specific causes
-- "Tycoons" set up funds with enough money to sustain work on multiple causes at the same time.
3) Simply throwing trillions of dollars at problems--the amount estimated by Boston College that will be donated by Americans between 1997 and 2007 is between $5 and $7 billion--does not fix the world.
--All three stereotypes have done much more than simply throw money at the problem. It is their expertise, support from the public and their willingness to challenge governments as much as their money that make them so valuable.
So, what is traditionally said to detract form "New Philanthropy" is not really true. But, is "New Philanthropy" really that good?
The answer is yes! The "New Philanthropists" can do what governments cannot. Their distance from established goevernments means that they can act without fear of international backlash (The US could not, for example, send "ex-politicos" into Sudan to criticize the Sudanese government).
And efforts by the "New Philanthropy" do not go un-lauded. Time named Bill and Melinda Gates, as well as Bono as their 'Persons of the Year' in 2004. The Nobel Committee recently awarded Al Gore and countless other media outlets and award foundations are recognizing the efforts of the "New Philanthropists".
I began this post with a quote by Andrew Carnegie; so, who better to end it with: "Such, in my opinion, is the true Gospel concerning Wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the Rich and the Poor, and to bring "Peace on earth, among men Good Will."
Friday, October 12, 2007
Captain Planet he's our... next president?
Dear Mr. Gore,
Congratulations on your winning the "Nobel Prize for Making the World a Better Place in Some Unspecified Way" (per The Economist). What a year this has been for you: An Oscar, an Emmy and a Nobel Prize! Good thing those pesky Florida votes went to President Bush and not yourself. Otherwise, how could you focus on the pressing issue of Global Warming? So, I imagine you will pat yourself on your back and get straight back to work convincing world leaders to act on the crisis of Climate Change, right? Clearly, your work has been valuable and acknowledged; but, not enough has yet been done to combat this issue. So, you can imagine my surprise at all the articles calling you to now enter the presidential foray! The very credibility that has allowed you to pontificate on Global Warming comes from your now being outside of the Beltway; step back in, and you will lose all credibility! You have dedicated yourself to an issue that is bigger than yourself (and kudos on that!), do not enter the presidential race, and make it all about you.
Sincerely,
Wary of a Run
P.S. The last former vice-president to run for President eight years after losing the race directly after his vice-presidency: Richard Nixon.
Congratulations on your winning the "Nobel Prize for Making the World a Better Place in Some Unspecified Way" (per The Economist). What a year this has been for you: An Oscar, an Emmy and a Nobel Prize! Good thing those pesky Florida votes went to President Bush and not yourself. Otherwise, how could you focus on the pressing issue of Global Warming? So, I imagine you will pat yourself on your back and get straight back to work convincing world leaders to act on the crisis of Climate Change, right? Clearly, your work has been valuable and acknowledged; but, not enough has yet been done to combat this issue. So, you can imagine my surprise at all the articles calling you to now enter the presidential foray! The very credibility that has allowed you to pontificate on Global Warming comes from your now being outside of the Beltway; step back in, and you will lose all credibility! You have dedicated yourself to an issue that is bigger than yourself (and kudos on that!), do not enter the presidential race, and make it all about you.
Sincerely,
Wary of a Run
P.S. The last former vice-president to run for President eight years after losing the race directly after his vice-presidency: Richard Nixon.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Note: Placement
Due to a technological error, my latest post appears after "Shame, Shame, Shame". Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Shame, Shame, Shame
Nowadays, Darfur seems to be a memory. Nuclear talks in North Korea, the War in Iraq, nuclear dealings in Iran and the Pakistani election are all more current topics and enjoy more media time than the western region of the Sudan. I guess that for the beleaguered people of Sudan, their story has come full circle: silence. Five years ago, the conflict in Darfur exploded; The government backed militia began killing the tribal residents and literally destroying the world around them. Since then, over 400,000 Darfurians have died and some two million have lost their homes and reside in refugee camps across the border in Chad; where the violence is now spreading.
I confess that I myself only learned of the tragedy a year after it had started. From that time, I worked to spread awareness. I would tell anybody of the terrible goings-on in Darfur. Foolishly, I believed that what stopped action was a lack of awareness and that once people were aware, they would do something. And, once we had that awareness, I thought that maybe, just maybe, something would happen. And yet, the meager African union force cannot control the violence and the government of Sudan and the vile President Omar Al-Bashir, who claims no responsibility, has hindered the international community from doing anything. So now, that awareness has left. This week, a group of well known and diverse international figures (including President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and billionaire Richard Branson; see: "Carter, Others Lash Out at Darfur Misery") toured the country and saw the terror first hand: "Darfur is one of the most awful places in the world," commented Tutu. However, after seeing the horror for himself Carter said that "The atrocities were horrible but I do not think it qualifies to be called genocide." No, Mr. Carter, 400,000 dead is not genocide, is it? No, Mr. Carter, killing them because of their ethnicity and religious beliefs is not genocide, is it?
So I say shame. Shame to the international community, shame to Mr. Bashir and his government, shame to Mr. Carter; but, most of all, shame to me and you who do not have the courage to do anything. Margaret Mead once said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Cannot you or I be these people? And if so, why do we wait? How many more must die until we do something?
"Never again"? It is a shame such good rhetoric must go to waste.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Israel, Syria and a Vail of Secrecy
For the past month, rumors have abounded about a small swath of desert in Syria; the target of an Israeli air raid on September 6th. For a week after, the major players in this conflict remained suspiciously silent; apart from Syria which condemned the attack and claiming the Israeli Air Force (IAF) had flown into sovereign territory and had been shot at by the new Syrian air defenses.
Since then, news has slowly trickled out in an odd and suspect manner. There were leaks from within the Israeli government and a tepid confirmation of a raid by the US government. Rumours came that the strike was against weapons being transported from Iran to Hezbullah terrorists in Lebanon, or, worse yet, a shipment of nuclear equipment and supplies from North Korea to Syria. The Israeli's let out an intriguing comment that their "deterrence capability" had been restored since the war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. The latest piece of information came three days ago out of Israel: an official acknowledgment of an air raid on a target in the Syrian desert on September 6th, nearly a month after the actual raid.
My question is: what gives? Israel is given to secrecy, but historically, this secrecy abates after a successful operation. Which might lead one to think that this operation was a failure; but, all the evidence points to a success (especially the relative quiet in Syria). So, if this was indeed a success, why is Israel being so quiet? Israel has always used its military successes (read: Six Day War) to gain credibility within the international community. In its current state, this is exactly what Israel needed after its highly publicized Lebanese debacle.
However, Israel had to keep in mind that, if it said anything, other Arab countries would feel it necessary to speak out against Israel's countries. I think that the biggest reason for the secrecy is for fear. With the world's eye turned towards a peace conference between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel believes that if it regains the belief of the world that it is a military threat, then it can use that upper hand to muscle in a peace deal that excludes the "key points" of the Palestinians and Arabs regarding the "right of return" and "occupied territories".
Regardless, The Israeli military is not as weak or unable to exert its force as believed after Lebanon and this message will reach foreign ears, both in the West and those not (read: Iran).
Since then, news has slowly trickled out in an odd and suspect manner. There were leaks from within the Israeli government and a tepid confirmation of a raid by the US government. Rumours came that the strike was against weapons being transported from Iran to Hezbullah terrorists in Lebanon, or, worse yet, a shipment of nuclear equipment and supplies from North Korea to Syria. The Israeli's let out an intriguing comment that their "deterrence capability" had been restored since the war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. The latest piece of information came three days ago out of Israel: an official acknowledgment of an air raid on a target in the Syrian desert on September 6th, nearly a month after the actual raid.
My question is: what gives? Israel is given to secrecy, but historically, this secrecy abates after a successful operation. Which might lead one to think that this operation was a failure; but, all the evidence points to a success (especially the relative quiet in Syria). So, if this was indeed a success, why is Israel being so quiet? Israel has always used its military successes (read: Six Day War) to gain credibility within the international community. In its current state, this is exactly what Israel needed after its highly publicized Lebanese debacle.
However, Israel had to keep in mind that, if it said anything, other Arab countries would feel it necessary to speak out against Israel's countries. I think that the biggest reason for the secrecy is for fear. With the world's eye turned towards a peace conference between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel believes that if it regains the belief of the world that it is a military threat, then it can use that upper hand to muscle in a peace deal that excludes the "key points" of the Palestinians and Arabs regarding the "right of return" and "occupied territories".
Regardless, The Israeli military is not as weak or unable to exert its force as believed after Lebanon and this message will reach foreign ears, both in the West and those not (read: Iran).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)