Posted on 11/10/2005 6:58:15 AM PST by ZGuy
Wealth Does Not Equal Wisdom, Especially When it Comes to Philanthropy
What’s with these billionaires? Ted Turner donates hundreds of millions to the United Nations, which is well known for its incredible corruption. The UN oversaw the diversion of tens of billions in the Iraqi Oil for Food Scandal. This literally took away food, shelter, and clothing from its own men, women and children. The highest UN officials oversaw the multi billion dollar scams. The UN "peace keepers" traded food for sexual favors in Africa. After some 17 resolutions demanding to bring Iraq into compliance, the UN still chose to subvert the formation of a democracy there.
And what’s with the socialist billionaire George Soros who donates tens of millions to some of the most virulent leftwing anti-American anti-capitalist groups to help subvert the duly elected Bush administration. Other billionaires such as Warren Buffett and Peter Lewis are joining in the attacks. One suspects that even these billionaires have not learned the lessons of history, namely, that without their despised capitalism, they would never have acquired their wealth in the first place.
Now along comes Bill Gates, the world’s richest man. His contributions to the world of communications and desktop computers has been world changing, for which we can all be grateful. But even Gates is not exempt from mind-boggling silliness, at a level unbecoming to a high school freshman.
As reported in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of The Guardian, a British newspaper, Bill Gates donated $258 million dollars to the fight against malaria. Gates correctly describes the rich world’s efforts to fight malaria as "a disgrace". He went on the say, correctly, "For too long malaria has been a forgotten epidemic".
His new funds are to be directed at the Malaria Vaccine Initiative which apparently is attempting to develop a vaccine for this disease. What is clearly apparent and disappointing is that Gates has not done his homework on the history of the control and elimination of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases.
The environmental fight against DDT ended in 1972 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned its production and use. This was in the Nixon Administration under the first EPA administrator William D. Ruckelshaus. This fight and the ultimate DDT ban were the culmination of a years-long environmental struggle. Politically, it put the greens on the political map as a serious influential force. On another level it demonstrated that political success does not depend upon scientific honesty.
The environmental movement used its familiar propaganda methods of exaggerations, fear, and dishonesty. As a direct result millions in the Third World have died since. Hundreds of millions still suffer from the non-fatal aspects of malaria and the other mosquito-borne diseases.
DDT was first discovered by Dr. Othmar Zeidler in 1879, without any obvious uses. Then in 1939 (according to Steve Milloy (at www.junkscience.com)) Dr. Paul Muller independently produced DDT who quickly found that it killed flies, aphids, mosquitoes, walking sticks, and Colorado potato beetles. My first knowledge of DDT came during those famous newsreels in the 1940s when both soldiers and holocaust survivors were sprayed with clouds of DDT to kill body lice, head lice, and crab lice. Muller went on to win the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1948 for his discovery.
Later in 1970 the National Academy of Sciences wrote "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT…In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 millions deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable."
The famous but misleading book Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson has been shown to have misrepresented the risks of DDT in many areas. DDT has never been shown to be a carcinogen in humans even at doses 33,000 times the average daily human intake (at the 1972 levels. See J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 1999), 125 (3-4).
Then in 1971 and 1972 EPA administrator Ruckelshaus convened an EPA hearing (not a Congressional hearing) presided over by a Judge Edmund Sweeney for more than 6 months. During that time more than 9300 pages of expert testimony were presented. As a result Judge Sweeney wrote in a 114 page opinion summarizing the hearing findings:
DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to humans DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man The uses of DDT under the registrations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. The petitioners have met fully their burden of proof (the harmlessness of DDT at the known doses) There is a present need for the continued use of DDT for the essential uses defined in this case. Remarkably in spite of this recommendation not to ban DDT, Ruckelshaus proceeded to do so. It is no coincidence that William Ruckelshaus was a highly placed official at the time within the Environmental Defense Fund (now renamed Environmental Defense) which led the opposition to DDT. In a better world this would have been called a conflict of interest.
In the 1977 book Ecological Sanity by George Klaus and Karen Bolander there are more than 300 pages documenting the science behind DDT and the intrigue which led to the ban. Other science texts carry many similar analyses, and Mr. Gates should have availed himself of these. As a consequence of the ban more than 1 million people have died each year since the 1972 ban and tens of millions suffer from the permanent, non-fatal effects. This loss of human life now exceeds those lost in the Nazi holocaust.
The greens were actively involved with orchestrating the ban of an extraordinarily effective weapon against DDT, which resulted in the deaths and debilitation to hundreds of millions. Those millions have died (and continue to die) as a direct result of their environmental exaggerations and their sympathizers in government agencies. Their claims of concern for human health are empty.
Remarkably, African leaders are now catching on to the greens and their 30 year history of destroying lives. Roger Bates and Richard Tren of Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM), Nov. 1, 2005, report quote Uganda’s Minister of Health, Jim Muhwezi, "DDT has been proven over and over again, to be the most effective and least expensive method of fighting malaria".
See the full report here: http://www.cei.org
Klaus and Bolander provide an appropriate quote from Jonathan Swift’s The Art of Political Lying, The Examiner", (Collected Works, Vol. V, 22-38, (1738), 1711):
"Few lies carry the inventor’s mark, and the most prostitute enemy to truth may spread a thousand without being known for the author: besides, as the vilest writer has his readers, so the greatest liar has his believers; and it often happens that, if a lie be believed only for an hour, it has done its work, and there is no farther occasion for it..Considering the natural disposition in many men to lie, and in multitudes to believe, I have been perplexed what to do with that maxim so frequent in everybody’s mouth, that truth will at last prevail."
Before Gates throws another $258 million dollars pursuing a problem already solved, he should learn such history and seek the counsel of those scientists who still believe in the honest practice and pursuit of science.
It's thier money. I wish they would spend more here but it's still thier money.
Atlas Shrugged
Their wealth has made them goofy. (Or they were goofy to begin with.)
Hey...it happens.
I think they all look like Orcs.
Part of what made them so financially successful is also their biggest problem.
Huge egos and grandiose sense of self.
Nothing new here...say Rosebud.
I don't see any problem with Gates spending his money to try and discover a vaccine for malaria. In places where DDT is on the banned list, the vaccine might be the only way to save lives.
My opinion:
Soros: wants control, so spends money on the useful idiots.
Turner: made money by play-acting and talking his way to the top. Doesn't appreciate it.
Gates: Similar to Turner, but less so. Has learned to play the political game of throwing money to Looting Politicians to get around Stupid Laws and Bureacracies.
What's wrong with them? They have reaped billions of dollars from the poor and disadvantaged. Something they preach in public entirely different from what they practice in real life.
Nothing is wrong with them...they realized the easiest way to "buy" power is to buy the left. The right is about individualism, there are just too many individuals to buy, even for billionaires.
They live in a rarified world. They do not understand ordinary people and are in fear that ordinary people spend all their time in green-eyed envy of the wealthy. They cannot comprehend that most people, even poor people, have more important things in their lives. They fear farmers with pitchforks, if I may use a metaphor.
They are aware that their security is no match for the hordes, so they supplement their protection with conspicuous virtue. They make a big deal about being virtuous and caring about the little people, hoping to stave off and attack.
It doesn't matter if it solves no problem as long as it is conspicuous. It doesn't matter what it costs. However much they give away, it is a small price for security and peace of mind.
In other words, they have no idea what people are really like, and they live in a kind of weird combination of luxury and fear.
Gates doesn't have the power to make the world take a rational approach to using DDT to fight malaria.
He is extremely generous with his wealth in helping those who are unable to help themselves. Developing a vaccine for malaria would save an incredible number of people's lives. It's a worthy cause, and possibly the best approach he has available.
What they are is not considered polite to discuss in public.
Is anyone sure that it really their money?
"It's thier money. I wish they would spend more here but it's still thier money."
Gates and Microsoft have made many people a lot of money and have done a lot for our economy.
However, I've noticed a trend with his donations. He helps people who for some reason cannot help themselves.
Gates wasn't handed a fortune from which he made a larger fortune. He made himself rich.
He donates money to schools, and to people in third world nations, but I don't see him donating to causes that help people who could reasonable help themselves.
Peter Lewis, at least, made his money exploiting the bad fortune of others. His Progressive insurance company offerred pool insurance to drivers who were not accepted by other companies. So, first pass a law requiring it, then soak the customers. At one point Progressive was charging me $900/mo to insure two cars, after State Farm declined to renew after two little snow accidents.
Well, all three are atheists.
All their money will mean nothing to them someday, and they will then realize they didn't find the greatest treasure in life---the Almighty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.