> > Bill worked his butt off to get where he was today, and isn't a greedy man. He gives away millions each year.
> >
> > --Help
>
> I don't really know much about Bill Gates' situation, but I do know that Tall Poppy Syndrome is alive and well, regardless of who you are. Envy of other people who are more successful is pretty common, and instead of working harder to get there yourself, most prefer to just pull them down.
> One little point, however. I believe Bill Gates didn't begin donating to charities until all of the negative attention started. It was something that was pointed out to him, so he started doing it. Not that it should be a problem, it's his money, he can do what he likes with it.
>

I'd like to thank dingdong for the concept of "the tall poppy syndrome." It's named after the saying "it is the tall poppy that is the first to be cut." This phrase may only be endemic to Australianspeak, I think. Anyway, I know C.S. Lewis once talked about this, a long time ago, in The Abolition of Man. The way Lewis described it (using the imagery of heads of wheat) was that basically we are living in a time where any head that dares to emerge above the others comes into danger of being chopped off. As James Dowling writes, the truth is that people seem to consider it 'cool' to denigrate a clear leader no matter how valid (or invalid) the research behind this opinion might be.

Frankly, you know, this seems to be the case every time the topic of Microsoft comes up on this board. Gates gets roundly castigated. While I don't dispute that MS products have a tendency to bloatware, and all versions of Windows prior to Win2000 have been -- shall we say, klunky and crash prone? -- in general they produce and publish some damn good products. And yes, in getting to the top MS probably did engage in various predatory, anti-competition practises which neither they, nor anyone else, should be allowed to get away with. But their practises have been no worse than those typically engaged by many corporations in other industries (such as the tobacco and liquor giants, and *especially* the financial world, etc.) For example, I am annoyed with a certain Canadian company which bought out two formerly great software products -- Xara and WordPerfect -- and then bloated them out of all recognition; as well as with SONY Music Co. for taking over CBS Records Masterworks but then prompty dropping the best classical works that CBS had. I also deplore how Cedant Software gutted Sierra Adventures (King's Quest series by Roberta Williams), so thoroughly that they're now a sports+board gaming house! We consumers may not like it, but these things happen. MS hardly has a monopoly on nasty takeovers and close-outs.

As for Bill Gates' charitable donations supposedly beginning only after he came under public fire. The cynical among us will find it easy to view his actions as an act of desperation resulting from guilt, public pressure, and public relations visibility. The cynical among us say that BG giving a few million dollars away in a year would be like us giving away five bucks in a year. But why does ANYONE donate anything at all -- could it truly be for the purposes of sheer altruism? Humans just aren't that simple. The strictest way to look at it is that individuals usually 'give' in order to 'get' something back -- if not in recognition, then in self-satisfaction. I get a little ticked when people instantly dismiss the philanthropic efforts of richer people, saying "Sure, HE can afford to throw money at the world's needy, no sweat off Bill's back." But the point is that THEY are benefitting far more from his generosity than HE ever will, given he's already been tarred as tainted by his own countrymen. I would hope Bill Gates takes an acute interest in where his money's going. He could easily start investing in totally useless moon-pie endeavors, like buying 20,000 hacksaw blades to stick in a warehouse (like the last billionaire sheikh who had more money than he knew what to do with). Gates' colleagues report that BG has a genuine interest in world health; rather than pawning it off on some focus group, he's spent thousands of hours of time, personally researching global issues so as to best target his donations. This research is critical because a large chunk of the famine and destitution in this world *isn't* caused by natural disaster, or by lack of arable land and water. People are dying of disease and starvation either through deliberate neglect -- or through conscious acts of genocide coming from their own governments.


GATES DONATED MORE THAN U.S. GOVT HELPING POOR: Report
/ / / / / / / WASHINGTON, Dec 26, 2000 -- Microsoft founder Bill Gates, in conjunction with his wife Melinda, donated $300 million more to charitable causes in the past year than the entire U.S. Government, according to newspaper reports. In moves aimed primarily at reversing the health crisis among the world's poor, Gates targeted global health threats such as AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, often donating tens of millions of dollars at a time, according to the Boston Globe. The man who led the computer-software revolution now accounts for more than a quarter of what all industrialized countires spend for the health needs of underdeveloped nations. His foundation gave $1.44 billion last year, compared with about $5 billion from industrialized nations. The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that in 1999, Bill and Melinda Gates also topped the list of charitable givers, donating $16 billion in total. Netscape co-founder Jim Clark ranked second among top givers, donating $150 million to build a biomedical-engineering center at Stanford University. -- AFP