Author: s1e2t3u4p5

Warren Buffett — not known as a particularly principled supporter of capitalism, though clearly talented at making money — has long planned to give away his fortunes when he died. But he’s decided to move up the timetable.
From the article “Warren Buffett gives away his fortune” published today in Fortune Magazine:

Buffett, 75, has for decades said his wealth would go to philanthropy but has just as steadily indicated the handoff would be made at his death. Now he was revising the timetable.
“I know what I want to do,” he said, “and it makes sense to get going.” On that spring day his plan was uncertain in some of its details; today it is essentially complete. And it is typical Buffett: rational, original, breaking the mold of how extremely rich people donate money.
Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett’s (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).
The Gateses credit Buffett, says Bill, with having “inspired” their thinking about giving money back to society. Their foundation’s activities, internationally famous, are focused on world health — fighting such diseases as malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis — and on improving U.S. libraries and high schools.

Giving money to charity can be a very good thing, if the money gets spent well, and infectious diseases are a great problem to address through private charity rather than government appropriations.
But when we hear Buffett and Gates claiming that this is their way of “giving back to society” (as though they were looters up to this point, rather than trading value-for-value with every day they worked) it all starts sounding like a scene from Atlas Shrugged — and not a good one.
If they really want to give to society, they should stop apologizing for their success and start promoting values like political freedom, private property, and free markets — values that not only allowed them to become wealthy, but will allow future generations to do the same.

Anyone following Google’s adventures (and misadventures) in China may be interested in Glenn Reynolds’s latest opinion editorial:

Google has been a huge deal â?? its founders have become rich, its name has become a verb, and its influence is international.
Lately, though, I’ve been wondering if Google has peaked. The reason is that, for lots of different groups of people, Google’s reputation as good guys has been stained. And I’m not sure what Google really has to bank on, besides a good reputation.
Google has come under criticism from people on the left â?? and right â?? for its cave-in to Chinese demands for censorship. From “don’t be evil,” Google’s motto has seemed to be “don’t be evil unless there’s a really big market at stake.”

Keep reading…

From an excellent article at Newsweek by Jonathan Alter, updating us all on the age in which we live and why it’s going to prove significant during the next presidential election:

Bob Schieffer of CBS News made a good point on “The Charlie Rose Show” last week. He said that successful presidents have all skillfully exploited the dominant medium of their times. The Founders were eloquent writers in the age of pamphleteering. Franklin D. Roosevelt restored hope in 1933 by mastering radio. And John F. Kennedy was the first president elected because of his understanding of television.
Will 2008 bring the first Internet president? Last time, Howard Dean and later John Kerry showed that the whole idea of “early money” is now obsolete in presidential politics. The Internet lets candidates who catch fire raise millions in small donations practically overnight. That’s why all the talk of Hillary Clinton’s “war chest” making her the front runner for 2008 is the most hackneyed punditry around.

[…] To begin busting up the dumb system we have for selecting presidents, a bipartisan group will open shop this week at Unity08.com. This Internet-based third party is spearheaded by three veterans of the antique 1976 campaign: Democrats Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon helped get Jimmy Carter elected; Republican Doug Bailey did media for Gerald Ford before launching the political TIP SHEET Hotline. They are joined by the independent former governor of Maine, Angus King, and a collection of idealistic young people who are also tired of a nominating process that pulls the major party candidates to the extremes. Their hope: to get even a fraction of the 50 million who voted for the next American Idol to nominate a third-party candidate for president online and use this new army to get him or her on the ballot in all 50 states. The idea is to go viralâ??or die. “The worst thing that could happen would be for a bunch of old white guys like us to run this,” Jordan says.

[…] But funny things happen in election years. With an issue as eye-glazing as the deficit, a wacky, jug-eared Texan named Ross Perot received 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and 7 percent in 1996. He did it with “Larry King Live” and an 800 number. In a country where more than 40 percent of voters now self-identify as independents, it’s no longer a question of whether the Internet will revolutionize American politics, but when.

This is a very exciting possibility for those of us who are perennially frustrated by the current two-party dynamics in the United States.
See the full article for more.
UPDATE (6/1/06) – Peggy Noonan has a timely article in the WSJ on a related topic, namely, the continued crisis of two-party politics, and the increasing likelihood that only a third-party candidate could deliver the kinds of reform that American needs in order to stay safe, free, and fiscally responsible.
UPDATE (6/2/06) – And today, more on this topic from Instapundit.