I must say the word "philanthropist" used along side "billionaire" never did add up - I think it's an oxymoron - why would a real philanthropic lad have billions of dollars?
In either case they look charming together - and makes one wonder why the PM did not show up for the World AIDS event in Toronto.
"Mr Harper, the role of prime minister includes the responsibility to show leadership on the world stage," Wainberg told cheering delegates, at the opening ceremony of the conference.
Mark Wainberg, co-chair of the 16th International AIDS conference said:
"Your absence sends a message that you do not regard HIV/AIDS as a critical priority, and clearly all of us here tonight disagree with you," he said, drawing a standing ovation.
No problem if its a billionaire - hey Steve?
15 comments:
As much as I dislike Microsoft and it's unpleasant domination of the software industry, I have a great deal of respect for the charity of Mr. Gates. I am especially grateful that he has chosen to apply his wealth to the world health issues. He could have simply endowed a University or two and built a fewbuildings.
To put it in perspective, he has given more dollars to charity than you and I have brain cells.
Tacky, Sue, tacky.
1. If someone is a pauper, that person can hardly be a philanthropist, can he, Sue? It's really quite a simple concept to grasp. Also, he made his money from Microsoft. If you don't like him, or his company, don't buy his/its products.
Moreover, are you complaining that he should NOT be giving money away, or funding life-saving drug research? What IS your complaint, anyways? This time. That Gates has "wronged" NL&L? How?
2. Stressing honesty, which must be an alien concept, have you bothered to inform your readers that the "AIDS comments" you quote to bash our Prime Minister, were from last summer? He did NOT have to choose between a joint announcement with Mr. Gates, and the AIDS conference? They were 9 months apart. Cute, Sue.
Did you notify your readers that Canada's Health Minister was in attendance at that AIDS conference? Or did you tell them that 113 attendees asked for asylum from Canada after the conference was over ... because all of them had AIDS and would receive treatment here, but certain death in their own country?
Did you tell them that, Sue? No, you didn't. Instead you cobbled together two unrelated, humanitarian events and stories that Canada should be proud of, and you turned it into a personal vilification of the Prime Minister and Canada.
Is this the only way that you can keep your rag-tag bunch of loser readers motivated to spill their continuous bile against the rest of Canada? You really are a case, aren't you.
And lest you think of deleting this, please be aware that I have copied it, and will be using it at my blog in a post about a very, very sick lady. I suspect it will be picked up by others, with a bit of promotion, and then your sham "outrage" against Canada will be exposed, Sue. And that's good for everybody.
I must say the word "philanthropist" used along side "billionaire" never did add up - I think it's an oxymoron
And again SKD shows her profound understanding of economics.
You need to have lots of money — billions, lets say — in order to give lots of money away, which is what philanthropists do.
You don't get rich by giving it away early in your career.
If someone is a pauper - "can" be a philanthropist by giving of their time and energy to support a cause instead of building an obscene personal fortune. Money is not the only philanthropy.
I don't have a personal opinion of Bill Gates - I stated my point of view on "billionaire philanthropist". There are more of them than Gates.
I did not say he should not support this cause which is very important - or any other worthwhile cause.
The two events are related as was pointed out by your Ontario news outlets. The PM should have been to the world conference. The fact that he made time for AIDS when Gates came - is disgusting.
Why would I delete it - afraid to speak against the corporate empires? We are still in Canada right?
The only difference between you and I is I will take a stand on an issue regardless of who the person is - where as you are frightened to death to speak in any way contradictory of a Bill Gates.
The love of money and the fact that you judge human success by money - is exactly how people like those involved in ENRON could con so long. I don't revere money.
What would you call Nelson Mandela or Mother Theresa - where they gave their lives for equally worthwhile causes? They are and were philanthropists. These two people were also extremely intelligent and could have used that for their own personal empire - lived in luxury then thrown some money at the causes - they fought in the trenches for themselves.
When we have people who are laying their lives on the line in places like Afghanistan and the reward is - if they are killed in battle their spouse has to battle with a bank to get their mortgage insurance paid - something is shagged up. There but for these people go Bill Gates.
As for given more money to charity than we have brain cells - some brain we'd have if you factor in what he has kept.
Sue - My dear you have brought the wrath of God down on you from Erik Sorenson.Your stance on the Lower Churchill is not the type of stand Quebecers, Ontarians and the remainder of mainland Eastern Canada want to see. I am not looking forward for the next few years while that Lower Churchill is sitting there undeveloped with the coveting eyes of Quebec and Ontario slavering to get at it. We are going to be crucified in the National newspapers and by people like Erik Sorenson, but we must remain firm on that project, it can only be developed with Labrador in mind. We can remember over the years many people with the viewpoints of Erik writing columns in the Globe and Mail lobbying for this province's resources. This blogger is no different and he will go to any length to break us down and get that resource for mainland Canada. We can not and will not buckle under the prejudices of mainland Canada towards Newfoundland and Labrador. The mentality of the mainland race is that what is Newfoundland and Labrador's is theirs.Canada knew darn well the resources that were housed in Newfoundland and Labrador and its strategic location long before they succeeded in having us merge with them. And Canada knew darn well how it was going to exploit those resource, both natural and human. And there is not doubt about it they have exploited us to the nth degree. It is a case for the world courts.
Let it come down - these barriers to the truth must be removed. We will do it for ourselves this time.
If someone is a pauper - "can" be a philanthropist by giving of their time and energy to support a cause instead of building an obscene personal fortune.
That's a volunteer, not a philanthropist.
The two events are related as was pointed out by your Ontario news outlets.
I don't have any news outlets, Ontario or otherwise.
The only difference between you and I is I will take a stand on an issue regardless of who the person is - where as you are frightened to death to speak in any way contradictory of a Bill Gates.
What do you base that on, Sue? You claim to be a researcher; what research evidence do you base that ridiculous conclusion on?
The love of money and the fact that you judge human success by money
Do I? Again, what do you base that on?
What would you call Nelson Mandela or Mother Theresa - where they gave their lives for equally worthwhile causes?
Activists and humanitarians, yes.
Philanthropists? Only in the 18th-century sense of the term.
Your jealousy, and that of other nationalist Newfoundlanders, of anyone with money, is half the province's problem.
You have jealousy confused with a difference of ideology - as for philanthropy - your defintion revolves around money - mine revolves around selfless giving in any way.
You write as if you desire the approval of Ottawa - I'm sure you have it.
You have jealousy confused with a difference of ideology - as for philanthropy - your defintion revolves around money - mine revolves around selfless giving in any way.
Philanthropy is selfless giving.
Not all selfless giving is philanthropy.
Not all giving of money is selfless either.
Sue: WJM made valid points refuting your posts, so I'll just comment peripherally, since one of your responses was aimed right at me:
1. "... The only difference between you and I is I will take a stand on an issue regardless of who the person is - where as you are frightened to death to speak in any way contradictory of a Bill Gates."
REALITY AND TRUTH: All 6 of my PCs and servers are Suse Linux and have been for years. One PC has an old copy of W2K in case I absolutely MUST run Windows; otherwise I use Wine. I operate another web site about technology that regularly bashes Microsoft and it's senior corporate officers including wonderful Willy. Throughout my life I have taken stands and not backed down when I thought it was right, just, and/or fair. That's why Gordon Bell, CEO of Scotiabank, used to throw ashtrays at me when he got upset about what I was saying. RESULT: ANOTHER BIG LIE OF YOURS.
2. "The two events are related as was pointed out by your Ontario news outlets."
REALITY AND TRUTH: I have been unable to find a single newspaper, magazine or web site in CANADA, let alone Ontario (except yours, of course) that implied the two were linked by date. They weren't. By 6+ months, in fact. Nor, if you are pulling your info from a publication, do you mention that your quoted Mark Wainberg the same day (not 6 months prior) praised Harper/Gates for their initiative. SO, ANOTHER "MIS-STATEMENT".
3. "The love of money and the fact that you judge human success by money."
REALITY AND FACT: Prove it. Give me one verifiable source. I happen to place character, honesty, trustworthiness, self-sufficiency and track-record as the top 5. Money is just a score-keeping exercise for one criteria that isn't even in my top 5. ANOTHER BIG LIE.
Wild accusations, anger that "they" are "suppressing" NL&L. No, Sue, just your own mind. You really do hate and loathe any hint of success, eh?
You might also want to look up the name Warren Buffett of Hathaway. After his wife died he lost heart and moved his billions and billions across to the Gates Foundation, since Bill and Melinda are proving to have an excellent administration and a dispensation policy that is lucid, rrational and compassionate in the right places.
I beat up Bill the Microsoft guy. I have respect and appreciation that he is channelling his multi-billion (45+ ??) fortune to humanitarian causes. The two are separate for me, and should be for you too. BTW, how's your Windows PC running?
Erik - sometimes those you consider friendly to your point of view - are simply using you as a host - to further another unrelated agenda.
That is why I continue to post WJM. He is questionably focused on one individual and the reasons are not pure or for constructive debate.
But sometimes - I guess you take advantage of a people tearing their own apart - as it gives the false impression that the hateful comments you make are credible.
WJM is not somebody you have to convince.
Billish Gates. Hehe. If you lived in Seatown you would hear a lot of things about dear Bill. He is doing a trimming of the biblical fat so to speak and the PR dividends are smokin'. Damage control starts early sometimes. It would be worth one's while, for anyone here who is interested to do some research on Billish and his activities in the third world with the Gates Foundation. Think of the movie "The Constant Gardener" and you will be onto a scandal that is brewing up for Mr. Gates. Money begets money which begets power. Mr. Gates fam damily didn't send him through Uni on a minimum wage salary I can guarandamtee you that. Nope. Money is handed down and then added to for generations. There are no free rides on this planet unless you are born to it and if you have cashish, that is your God. Everybody serves someone or something, it's how human beings are designed. Ask Danny et al, they will tell you how easy it is to play follow the leader with innocent folk who only want to have a decent life and home in which to raise their families. If there is a hell, there is a special place reserved for those who use the desperation of good people to attain power over them. Very dirty business that is. The measure of a human being is... you finish it for yourselves and it will say a lot about who you are.
Know what I wonder? Does Bill Gates feel love for someone lying in a bed like a rack of bones somewhere in Africa in a dirty hovel, dying of Aids? I doubt it. Good God, he doesn't give a good goddamn about someone sleeping on the street in Seattle. Tell you what though, if Bill Gates is in the centre of things when a cure for Aids is found, just think of the money he will make from the sale of the drugs.
February 21, 2007 10:40 AM - I must say MrsKelland-Dyer! you seem to attract only the finest our nation has to offer.
As with the people that do write on your Blog I would say that so far I have a strong grasp at what they are saying.And ,as this wriiter here .I cannot find a word that i do not agree with .
The wraith that is canada shall soon be on our head as a nation.The resources that are present in Labrador are a POT of gold for those Star Buck Coffee drinkers in Mainland canada.
And I want to say this for all to hear.Not one red cent ,and I leterally mean one red cent should not be spent unless it bebefits the people of Labrador ,and Labrador First.Whatever the partys Political Stripe.
Mr Wallace ,and I have had our words befor.This I hope is one thing that I would hope both of us could agree on.We do not agree however on who is to blame for the Upper-ChurchHill,but Im sure that the lower Churchill Mr Walace,if something should happen,it is only ourselves that we blame for the next mis-guided giveaway!!!Nice to have you back Mrs Kelland-Dyer!!!
Post a Comment