Bono Defends Steve Jobs Against Criticism Over Lack of Public Philanthropy

[mrelwood]

CWT, I have to quote your post in whole, because your suggestion is so terribly heartless, cruel, and inhumane. And since every word is true, I'm forced to agree with you.

But it is not limited to Africa, the same goes for the western world. Overpopulation will ofcourse present itself in a very different manner, but it's there. It's no surprise most people can't face the horrible truth. If they would, we might finally end up getting better solutions to overpopulation.

it is just best to let sick and starving Africans die, like I said in another post Africa food supplies are getting lower and lower and lower and the population is getting higher and higher, it is unsustainable, every life that is saved out there is a bigger burden on the food supplies so if charity saves 50m people out there then that is 50m more people that have to find food from somewhere, without being heartless it is better to let them just die in the name of population control than prop them up with charity.

While the food supplies are getting lower and lower we have the pope sending his missionaries out to Africa to encourage them to carry on breeding like rabbits.

If 1/3 of Africans are wiped out through disease and famine and nothing is done to help them then the remaining 2/3 will have more chance of having something to eat.

Better letting the kid in Darfur die of malaria, while Gates is well meaning with his scheme he is going to create even bigger problems long term with hardly any food out there.

If Gates was funding a sterilisation program out there to help population control, if Gates was supporting an educational program out there so that the catholic church bigots and their stone age no contraception weren't poisoning people's minds, if Gates was funding a genetic crops program that meant that crops would survive and more sustainable food supply then he should be supported but what he is doing with the malaria program will do more harm than good

----------

What Jobs has given us are great, expensive, overpriced products.

How exactly are they overpriced? Billions of people find them worth the price tag. The competitors are unable to compete with iPad prices, even when they need a whole lot less R&D than Apple did as a pioneer.

Can anyone show anything to prove that he has ever chosen to employ people not to make more money and instead to help people?

Unfortunately that's not how business (, life, or society) works.

Jobs could have pushed Apple to move manufacturing to the US. (Profit is more important.)

That one is not about profit. For the business to be sustainable, that wouldn't even be possible. Lakland has two otherwise identical models made in Indonesia, of which one has US made pickups installed in US. The price jumps from $1100 to $1900. The same instrument made completely in the US: $4400.

I presume an iPad made in the US would cost atleast double of what it does now. How's that for business?

I've read through quite of few of these posts but I'm getting tired so please forgive me if I'm saying something somebody already said.

While I agree on the points you made, you are creating a reply you wouldn't even have read yourself. Who do you think wants to read your post then? That is extremely selfish and arrogant, even for a public talk forum behavior.

If you're rich, you probably used someone's labour force. It's fair returning the excess to the society.

Isn't salary for that? I don't think "fair" equals "required".

 

[*LTD*]

Universally Licensing their OS isn't what made Windows the dominant OS for Home Computers or Servers. If that were true you would probably see some *nix OS being dominant. The tactics that early Microsoft used are worthy of China.

This is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle.

Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows.

In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[6] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff "They ended up filming it -- grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident.

Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production."[7] Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop.

The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.[8]

 

[spacemanspifff]

Add your name here...

Steve Jobs - Bono - Me

Here is a very short list of people that haven't given half of their personal wealth to charity.

If you can't add your name to this list too, then you can complain about this, otherwise...

 

[sbb155]

Stop treating Jobs as a god.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet contribute a ton of cash to charity and they have plenty of money to invest in future technology, as they are already doing.

Yep, Jobs is selfish. An innovator, but really a businessman, not one who actually cares about the world once he is gone... He has made great products, but Gates has done more for the health of the world with his foundation. I love apple products, and jobs is great at making them. BUt I do not consider him to be a role model for helping the disadvantaged in the world.

 

[tigress666]

Hmm, so if we don't worship Steve Jobs and blindly follow and agree with everything Apple does without question, that automatically makes someone an android or windows fanboy and jealous of Apple and SJ...

And alternatively if we like apple we must be worshippers of Steve?

I have a feeling that was written by some one who dislikes apple and people who like apple products. It's really not a flattering image of anyone who likes apple products either (in fact I'd say it's more insulting to us than those who don't like Apple).

 

[Abazigal]

Yep, Jobs is selfish. An innovator, but really a businessman, not one who actually cares about the world once he is gone... He has made great products, but Gates has done more for the health of the world with his foundation. I love apple products, and jobs is great at making them. BUt I do not consider him to be a role model for helping the disadvantaged in the world.

I think the bottom line is ..... so? What does he care about what you or me think of him as a role model?

 

[sbb155]

I think the bottom line is ..... so? What does he care about what you or me think of him as a role model?

He doesnt care. Obviously. He cares about his own wealth. But unfortunately he'll be gone soon, and money cannot cure every one of life's ills. It is a lesson that is good to learn.

 

[Dbrown]

No you are assuming that because he didn't make a public statement about it that it means he never donated, there is simply no evidence that he didn't donate, maybe he didn't maybe he did donate there is no proof either way but to accuse him of not donating without any evidence of this fact is an outrageous slur.

Why is it outrageous? The man was CEO of the richest company in the world. During his time as CEO what notable charitable contributions has apple made?

Based on that (and his previous actions) it's quite easy to say Jobs doesnt give to charity.

 

[CWT1965]

Why is it outrageous? The man was CEO of the richest company in the world. During his time as CEO what notable charitable contributions has apple made?

Based on that (and his previous actions) it's quite easy to say Jobs doesnt give to charity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article635187.ece


Michael Schumacher the F1 driver was assumed to be tight with money and had a Mr Nasty public image but it turned out that he was the single biggest private donater to the tsunami appeal, paid for the building of orphanages in India and several other good deeds, this fact came out against his will in the end, he just did not want fuss or attention and did his donations anonymously, what is to say Jobs doesn't do the same ?

----------

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article635187.ece

 

[*LTD*]

How convenient.

(insert yawn.gif here)

This "convenient" fact wasn't widely reported back in 1997. So it's easy to miss, probably due to all the breathlessness and emotional highs and lows going on. There was a mention of other payments MS agreed to make in addition to the $150 million. The amount was never publicly disclosed (which isn't really surprising.) For instance, the particulars of the recent Apple-Nokia deal weren't disclosed publicly either. Apple's financial records at the time suggested it was substantial.

The only mention we have of these later payments was from a televised broadcast. I'll try to dig up the settlement docs.

http://scripting.com/mail/mail970806.html

From: gorskic@concentric.net (Chris Gorski);
Sent at 8/6/97; 10:11:21 AM;
More Info...from CNBC
Sorry to keep writing, but my brain feels like it's connected to a fire hose...
Apple and MS are also collaborating on Java. What this means for Sun is anybody's guess. Again, forgot about this.

Bruce Francis will interview Ed Woolard (Apple board member) at 10:30 ET (7:30 your time) on CNBC. JObs won't be talking to the press today.
It's my guess that CNNfn (if your cable system carries it) will have very extensive coverage of all this on Digital Jam at 11 eastern (8 your time), probably with lots of video. It's the only thing worth watching on fn, even though Steve Young (their lead anchor) hasn't a clue.


From: gorskic@concentric.net (Chris Gorski);
Sent at 8/6/97; 10:42:37 AM;
More Bruce Francis News

In addition to all the other stuff that has been said, Edgar Woolard, Apple Board member and DuPont Chairman jsut revealed to CNBC's Bruce Francis that MS will, as part of the patent settlement, make "balancing payments" to Apple over the next 5 years. He would not disclose the sum.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article635187.ece


Michael Schumacher the F1 driver was assumed to be tight with money and had a Mr Nasty public image but it turned out that he was the single biggest private donater to the tsunami appeal, paid for the building of orphanages in India and several other good deeds, this fact came out against his will in the end, he just did not want fuss or attention and did his donations anonymously, what is to say Jobs doesn't do the same ?

----------

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article635187.ece

this fact came out against his will in the end, he just did not want fuss or attention and did his donations anonymously, what is to say Jobs doesn't do the same ?

Now if the facts of Schumy's donation were never disclosed publicly he might have left a legacy (inaccurate) of villainy and nastiness, even though that would be as far from the truth as one could get.

But certain elements of the public (as in, the self-righteous) need full and open disclosure so they can be assured that he was a good person. That is now the sad and unfortunate litmus test, apparently; otherwise folks like the New York Times will start asking questions and casting aspersions.

It isn't enough that the man distinguished himself in his field, or that he contributed significantly to his industry and probably inspired so many. His dedication and talent just isn't enough. We have to *know for a fact* that he donated to charity, "to the cause of humanity" - or else we'll assume the worst, or at least view his achievements as somehow insufficient.

That is absolutely bat-**** insane.

 

[mrxak]

Embarrassing

If Steve Jobs is anything like me, and I would be honored by that comparison, he only likes praise when it's for something worth getting praise for. I can't stand all the "good job"s people toss in my direction for truly mediocre stuff. It's embarrassing, and I will only accept praise for those rare legitimate accomplishments. Those who know me best have learned to only complement me on things that took actual effort.

Steve Jobs is proud of his work at Apple, he seems perfectly happy accepting praise for things like the iPod and iPad. But I think he'd be downright embarrassed having people talk about his charitable contributions. After all, that's not an accomplishment, that's just something everyone should be doing anyway. It's expected and it's ordinary, and Steve Jobs doesn't need or want attention for the ordinary. So he keeps it secret, and he keeps it personal, very likely secretly giving 150 million to cancer research, and who knows what else he's done. Good for him, he keeps the focus on his actual accomplishments then. As for the amounts, that's his own business. If he gave $1 to a cause he believes in, I'd feel the exact same way as if he gave $1 billion.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have no doubt done some good things, but doing so was literally the easiest thing they could do. These people wake up richer each day by more money than most of us make in a lifetime. If they can't accidentally set up a charitable foundation talking to their minions one day, something is rather wrong. We shouldn't praise them for it, we should just nod and say, okay, you've lived up to minimal expectations. And then we should just shake our heads and feel pity for their need for the attention.

There's another matter, too, and that's if you become known as a philanthropist, there is no end to the phone calls begging for money from every organization under the sun. That means you need to hire people to screen these calls, evaluate them, etc., which leaves less money for important work.

 

[Dbrown]

Michael Schumacher the F1 driver was assumed to be tight with money and had a Mr Nasty public image but it turned out that he was the single biggest private donater to the tsunami appeal, paid for the building of orphanages in India and several other good deeds, this fact came out against his will in the end, he just did not want fuss or attention and did his donations anonymously, what is to say Jobs doesn't do the same ?

I fail to see the point you're trying to make.

your link says that\ reserchers from F1 magazine checked records for donations and discoverd shumacher was making anonymous donations. So that's evidence right there.

Where's jobs evidence that he's contributed to anything?

 

[AppleScruff1]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article635187.ece


Michael Schumacher the F1 driver was assumed to be tight with money and had a Mr Nasty public image but it turned out that he was the single biggest private donater to the tsunami appeal, paid for the building of orphanages in India and several other good deeds, this fact came out against his will in the end, he just did not want fuss or attention and did his donations anonymously, what is to say Jobs doesn't do the same ?

----------

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article635187.ece

Maybe Shumacher isn't a douche?

 

[Avalontor]

If Steve Jobs is anything like me, and I would be honored by that comparison, he only likes praise when it's for something worth getting praise for. I can't stand all the "good job"s people toss in my direction for truly mediocre stuff. It's embarrassing, and I will only accept praise for those rare legitimate accomplishments. Those who know me best have learned to only complement me on things that took actual effort.

Steve Jobs is proud of his work at Apple, he seems perfectly happy accepting praise for things like the iPod and iPad. But I think he'd be downright embarrassed having people talk about his charitable contributions. After all, that's not an accomplishment, that's just something everyone should be doing anyway. It's expected and it's ordinary, and Steve Jobs doesn't need or want attention for the ordinary. So he keeps it secret, and he keeps it personal, very likely secretly giving 150 million to cancer research, and who knows what else he's done. Good for him, he keeps the focus on his actual accomplishments then. As for the amounts, that's his own business. If he gave $1 to a cause he believes in, I'd feel the exact same way as if he gave $1 billion.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have no doubt done some good things, but doing so was literally the easiest thing they could do. These people wake up richer each day by more money than most of us make in a lifetime. If they can't accidentally set up a charitable foundation talking to their minions one day, something is rather wrong. We shouldn't praise them for it, we should just nod and say, okay, you've lived up to minimal expectations. And then we should just shake our heads and feel pity for their need for the attention.

There's another matter, too, and that's if you become known as a philanthropist, there is no end to the phone calls begging for money from every organization under the sun. That means you need to hire people to screen these calls, evaluate them, etc., which leaves less money for important work.

Warren and Bill are working on ridding the whole world of Tuberculosis, Malaria and Aids as we speak and you just nod and say "okay, you lived up to minimal expectations!"

 

[CWT1965]

I fail to see the point you're trying to make.

your link says that\ reserchers from F1 magazine checked records for donations and discoverd shumacher was making anonymous donations. So that's evidence right there.

Where's jobs evidence that he's contributed to anything?

If the most famous active sportsman in the world wanted to keep his donations a secret what evidence is there that the worlds most famous businessman didn't want to do the same ?

Someone would have to hack into his accounts to find out, I don't think too many people want 25 years in jail by hacking into Jobs' personal accounts.

----------

I suspect that when Steve dies or his book comes out whichever happens first a lot will come out about his charity works and I suspect many are in for a shock and in a good way too.

 

[*LTD*]

Where's jobs evidence that he's contributed to anything?

Why is that important? How do you know that evidence won't somehow crop up later? Shall we assume Jobs is a d-bag until then? Will he be under some sort of cloud of suspicion until then?

 

[Hyper-X]

And alternatively if we like apple we must be worshippers of Steve?

I have a feeling that was written by some one who dislikes apple and people who like apple products. It's really not a flattering image of anyone who likes apple products either (in fact I'd say it's more insulting to us than those who don't like Apple).

Then your feelings have brought you to the wrong conclusion. I own many Apple products however I'm still biased towards MS software products due to the level of support which exists. You're one of those that think in such 1 dimensional terms where you think if I buy Apple products, then I must love the company. Just because I support MS products atm doesn't mean I worship the company, it doesn't mean I like Bill Gates, it doesn't mean that I put a Windows sticker on my car.

I see software and hardware like I view tools, I use anything available to support my requirements and gets the job done.

 

[MacinDoc]

Matthew 6:3-4

"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you".

Nuff said.

 

[Dbrown]

If the most famous active sportsman in the world wanted to keep his donations a secret what evidence is there that the worlds most famous businessman didn't want to do the same ?

Someone would have to hack into his accounts to find out, I don't think too many people want 25 years in jail by hacking into Jobs' personal accounts.

LOL, you bother to even read your own link? Even when shumacher tried to keep his donations out of the public eye, when F1 magazine searched they found out what he had been making all these behind the scenes donations.

People have been looking around to see if Jobs has donated for years now and cant find anything. You cant donate millions of dollars and not leave a trail somewhere.

Anyways apple's record for charitable donations while he was CEO easily shows that he doesnt donate to charity.

Why is that important? How do you know that evidence won't somehow crop up later? Shall we assume Jobs is a d-bag until then? Will he be under some sort of cloud of suspicion until then?

Well until anyone can show that he does donate to charity, yah he's a greedy dbag imo.

 

[AppleScruff1]

It really doesn't matter if he gives to charity or not. It's his choice either way. If he'd give me one of every Apple product, I'd say he's a good guy.

 

[*LTD*]

Well until anyone can show that he does donate to charity, yah he's a greedy dbag imo.

That's pretty messed up, but you're entitled just like anyone else.

 

[MacSince1990]

Those on here that seek to demonise Steve Jobs are not the sort that buy Apple products, they are likely android and windows fanboys who have a deep seated dare I say jealousy of Apple and Steve, no true Apple fan would criticise Steve Jobs

I commend your ability to ignore everything those with an opposing view have said.

As many of us have said, we love Apple products, and Steve Jobs is a dick. Always has been, always will be. Woz is a great guy.... many people who worked for Apple are great people. Jobs isn't one of them. If you added up the total original retail value of Apple products in this household, it would exceed $25,000. So yeah, we do actually use them.

This is an American website, by the way, and Apple is an American company. Stop using British spelling.

Big difference between Steve Jobs and some African that crawls hundreds of miles a week covered in flies searching for a bit of dirty water to drink, Steve is more deserving being kept alive than them.

Okay... how? And why? How is he "more deserving"?

Despite your obvious racism and horrific ignorance (no, the majority of Africa is not so destitute that they "crawl hundreds of miles a week covered in flies searching for dirty water"), even you must understand that you need to substantiate your opinions.

Plenty of Africans are White, by the way.

If you ask me, I'm more deserving of life than someone like SJ. Why? Well hell. For one thing, I'm a much more decent human being. For another, I don't share the same ****** genetic structure that he does; my genes are a lot better. I don't get sick, no one in my family has cancer, I'm extraordinarily athletic, and while Jobs is quite bright, he's no Da Vinci; I doubt he's much smarter than I am. (Okay, I'm being modest; I doubt he's any smarter than I am.) Hell, I don't even get hangovers. I don't get cold. Superior genetics trumps the G4 Cube, right?

You may feel free to disagree, but I'd rather appreciate a reasoned argument than the usual bluster you seem to be so quick to put forth.

Charity is more often than not a crutch for those that will not live up to their responsibilities.

And you know this how? First-hand experience? Or oh, wait... dismal ignorance coupled with an unwillingness to take a second to look at the reality of the world we live in.

Take a sociology class, broheim. The majority of people on welfare in this country are children.

How exactly are they overpriced? Billions of people find them worth the price tag.

Are you bloody serious? BILLIONS? Hundreds of millions, certainly, but 90% of those numbers are made up of iPods and iOS devices.. and those are total sales, not numbers of people.

Otherwise the numbers (in people) are in the 10s of millions. You're a joke.

 

[mrxak]

Warren and Bill are working on ridding the whole world of Tuberculosis, Malaria and Aids as we speak and you just nod and say "okay, you lived up to minimal expectations!"

This is not Bill and Warren giving 100% of their money, right now, and living as paupers, this is them living the lives of billionaires while tossing a bit of cash aside they couldn't hope to spend anyway. So yes, I consider that the bare minimum they could do. Any person, regardless of how much they have to give, if they end up destitute at the end, that's an accomplishment, and a real sacrifice worth praising. Even if it comes out tomorrow that Steve Jobs has been secretly giving a huge amount of money to charity, does it really matter if he's still living comfortably with no impact on the life he actually wants to live? He does live relatively modestly, it must be said. You may recall his house plans showing up on this site showing something very unlike the lavish homes of people like Bill Gates. Still, he lives comfortably, the way he wants to live, so whether he gives one dollar or a billion, it'd still be living up to minimal expectations. That goes for everyone, including the person living on minimum wage who drops some coins in a charity bucket around the holidays, the middle class person who gives $100 to their neighbor's kid's walk-a-thon, or the billionaire who pledges 50% of their net worth when they're dead and can't spend anymore. It doesn't seriously impact their standard of living, so it's no major praiseworthy accomplishment. It's conscientious, it's a good deed, but it's average, mediocre, and to be expected of any decent person who knows there are people in worse shape than them.

As I said, giving some money to a cause is the easiest thing in the world for billionaires to do. They have a lot of it, can't spend it all, so what else is going to happen to it? Now, if one of them goes and gets a medical degree, and actually cures AIDS personally, we can talk about them living up to more than just the bare minimum of effort. If one of them was completely broke, but still managed to start the Gates Foundation and get as much money in it as it has, that would be impressive because it would show some skill and true selflessness. But no, these guys are just rolling in cash, and along the way they decided to spread some of it around. The amounts they're giving, while certainly large by our standards, aren't significant because they have zero impact on these people's lives aside from the positive attention they get as a result.

If I had their kind of money, I wouldn't think much of giving a few billion away either, and I certainly wouldn't want to be praised for it since it is literally the least I can do. I'm not saying these are bad people, in Buffett's The Giving Pledge. I'm simply saying they aren't saints. When you have as much money as these people do, money is not that important, not that valuable. It's easy to give away half of it after you're dead when your children are guaranteed incredible wealth regardless. It is the least they can do.

So, regardless of Steve Job's own private contributions, at the minimum we know he is a private man, who lives fairly modestly, and only accepts praise for matters of actual consequence. His work at Apple, he is happy to take credit for, and rightfully so. Those are his accomplishments that took actual effort. Giving money away? If he does do it, at least he recognizes that's not a big deal.

 

[mikelegacy]

It is so incredibly frustrating, and to a very large extent, terrifying, to read this.

A child who gets malaria in the Darfur, and with a family who cannot afford the medications required, isn't in that situation because of a bad lifestyle or a non-existent work ethic on the part of any members of his or her family.

And please, can we stop with this claptrap about how we have no obligation to help our fellow humans? Eradicating malaria isn't bailing anyone out, giving those far, far less fortunate than us a chance for survival isn't bailing anyone out. The capacity for charity should be, and in today's times ought to be, above all else, what defines us as humans. Again, I hope I don't need to remind you that they are truly less "fortunate" than us; they are not in their positions because of any actions on their part.

Or in more concrete terms, if everyone thought the way you do, no organ or blood donation system of any kind would exist. Yes, we may be on the path to an "innovative" solution (manufactured organs?), but you know what? People are in hospitals *today* that need such help. Absolutely, those pursuing this "innovative" path should be more than commended, but this does not exonerate anyone from not doing anything right now.

Yes, I still firmly believe in capitalism. I don't think anyone here is advocating a communist style redistribution of wealth. Obviously though, donating a large part of an incredibly large fortune isn't in any way related to this.

it is just best to let sick and starving Africans die, like I said in another post Africa food supplies are getting lower and lower and lower and the population is getting higher and higher, it is unsustainable, every life that is saved out there is a bigger burden on the food supplies so if charity saves 50m people out there then that is 50m more people that have to find food from somewhere, without being heartless it is better to let them just die in the name of population control than prop them up with charity.

While the food supplies are getting lower and lower we have the pope sending his missionaries out to Africa to encourage them to carry on breeding like rabbits.

If 1/3 of Africans are wiped out through disease and famine and nothing is done to help them then the remaining 2/3 will have more chance of having something to eat.

Better letting the kid in Darfur die of malaria, while Gates is well meaning with his scheme he is going to create even bigger problems long term with hardly any food out there.

If Gates was funding a sterilisation program out there to help population control, if Gates was supporting an educational program out there so that the catholic church bigots and their stone age no contraception weren't poisoning people's minds, if Gates was funding a genetic crops program that meant that crops would survive and more sustainable food supply then he should be supported but what he is doing with the malaria program will do more harm than good

How can you say this and sleep at night? The problem isn't over population, it's that we let totalitarians and dictatorships overtake already poor nations, where their governments don't help the people. The dictator becomes UNBELIEVABLY rich, whilst letting the people suffer. I agree with krzy in the sense that these people did not have the choice to make something of themselves. They didn't have the chance to work hard and become something, but I bet if you gave them the chance right now, they would become above and beyond what you are I could ever become.

These are human beings you are talking about, not cattle.

We need to focus on getting rid of these terrorists and establishing governments for the people.

But then again, we probably would need to have a government that is for the people here in the US first, which ours definitely isn't.

 

[CWT1965]

Despite your obvious racism and horrific ignorance (no, the majority of Africa is not so destitute that they "crawl hundreds of miles a week covered in flies searching for dirty water"), even you must understand that you need to substantiate your opinions.

Plenty of Africans are White, by the way.

I was referring to the type of people that need charity off the likes of Bill Gates and Bob Geldof, people in Sudan and Ethiopia, in all the news bulletins I have ever seen of sick and starving kids on tv from Africa I have never seen a white african, the average African doesn't need charity I am referring to the type that show up on the news all the time, always black, always flies crawling all over them, always malnourished and dehydrated. Not all Africans are like that, merely the ones that Gates is donating money towards and Live Aid and Live 8 were trying to help

EPIC FAIL at trying to portray me as a racist.