What Think?

Who Needs a Fortune?

Most semi-connected folks know that Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect of Microsoft, is the world's wealthiest individual.  What I don't hear about often enough, however, is that he's also the most prolific philanthropist of the modern era and, perhaps, all time.  More astounding, too, is the plans he has for his wealth.  He's giving it away...bit by bit, donation by donation.   
In a fascinating interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News' 'This Week,' Gates outlines some of his passions for giving and why he is only leaving some of his fortune to his children.
Too often the gifts of the truly wealthy do little to stir philanthropic effort in we common folk.  How powerful, though, might it be if we followed Mr. Gates' example?    He's given away over $20 billion.  What if, though, the top 10% of the population (in terms of wealth) in the top 50 cities in the US gave just $50 more per month?  That's about my Starbucks bill (nothing against SBUX, but just for example).  Taking just the lowest populous example (Arlington, TX at 369,467 in 2004) that would be about 36,000 people x 50 cities x 12 months x $50.  That's just over $1 billion USD.  Every year.
Bill Gates has a bit more to give, but what if the generally well-off decided to focus on one major issue, every year, and make a difference?

Now, I know the danger in what-ifs, but need is real and everyone can, in some small way, make a difference.  If you're interested, here are some worthy organizations that we support:

• amfAR: American Foundation for Aids Research
• The Carter Center
• Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
• Willamette University
  

Meth and the Myopic Media...

...Please do not get me wrong - "drugs are bad, mmmkay?"   The media focus, however (at least in the Northwest, and, per the latest Newsweek, across the fruited plains, seems to boarder on the obsessive.   I understand the reasons for the laser-focus on this topic...its hot, its the focus-du-jour, and the ease of sensationalism around it sells.  Balancing fact with frenzy, however, would be helpful and might actually add a measure of critical thinking and - perish the thought - action to the public discourse. 

In this vein, I highly recommend checking out "Meth Madness," (audio link)from On the Media's Bob Garfield.  Garfield interviews Reason editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie who makes a compelling case for balancing the dialog.

All that said, I really wouldn't trade my daily dose of random Meth coverage from the Oregonian or, better, KATU news.  At least it adds perspective.