Shoutout! 17 Comments

bigband.jpg I happened to see 3 different interviews with President Clinton over the past week. He is promoting the Clinton Global Initiative which I happened to support coldheartedly.

There was a scene in a movie called 'As Good As It Gets' in which a woman character comes to Jack Nicholson, who is playing an obsessive compulsive author and asks him how he knows woman so well. Apparently this woman was impressed how a male was able to personify and understand woman so well.

For some reason while I was watching Clinton speaking to Larry King about poverty and Aids, I thought about that scene. I thought how could the west be oblivious about the situation in Africa, or for that matter in the rest of the world.

In reality though a lot of powerfull people are doing some great humanist measure. Actions by Ted Turner, Bono, Bill & Melinda Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffet, President Jimmy Carter and Clinton among many others should not only be appreciated but also commended for all they are doing in Africa. In most cases they have contributed more against Aids & Poverty than the respective African governments.

17 Responses to “Shoutout!”


  1. 1 zemedkun

    Do you really know how foundations work or are you reporting based on the foundations statements?

    I personally would like to know exactly why you are appreciating them, so that I can do the same.

  2. 2 Nolawi

    Zemedkun, both

    I am a little familiar with how these priv foundations work…. the intent of most of the people above is to help… to me the fact they choose to help in africa is very humanistic…

    The fact of the matter is that government aid from the west especially US doesnt help much because it comes with strings…

    for example The US aid approved a lot of money to fight Aids in africa… some of which to buy condoms to be distributed free… the money first goes to a contracting corporation based in US… these private or non-profit companies are required to buy the condoms from US manufacturers where condoms are priced 10 times (I’m guessing here) higher than from china… and then there is corruption in the respective african countries… Trojans condoms which were meant for aid end up in the market….

    By the time the money trickles down… less 10% might actually help… it actually helps the US economy much more…

    the difference with private funds is that they contracting corporations do not have extracurricula agendas…. although the govt does require the charity to have 501c in the us.. so that the charity could give the tax breaks these people need….

    sorry to go on and on… but the accomplishments of acts by the likes of Clinton in the past 5 yrs, bono different orgs… is just so amazing… not just the money but also the amout of awareness they bring to the game…
    check this out

    there are various articles regarding what the orgs are doing so check google the names plus aids in africa….

  3. 3 ShalomShalom

    …or simply put, doing some good is better than doing no good, and much much better than doing harm.

  4. 4 zemedkun

    I guess my question was:

    1. Do foundations spend their own money or simply direct aid money? Will Gates foundation for example liquidate its assets by spending it on a cause or will it ever always be a $30billion foundation? Are they doing philantropy or just keeping a legacy for their family in the form of a tax shelter?

    2. On Clintons initiative: Given that Clinton’s initiative came on the hills of an outright rejection of AIDS drug patents as immoral and a shift towards indian and SA made drugs – his role, in partnership with the US based drug companies, was primarily ensuring that that switch doesn’t occur. As a result AIDS drugs are cheaper, but no where as cheap as they would have been had there been a switch. Consquently, only aid money can afford these drugs. Local governments still find the prices restrictive. They can not produce these drugs themselves at the much lower cost. Since his initiative came through, that debate has disappeared. Is that still good use of aid money? I wonder what happened to this (http://www.plusnews.org/pnprint.asp?ReportID=3125 ) and other similar projects since his initiative started.

    Does anyone know if the two licenced pharmacuticals are now producing ARVs in Ethiopia? Why is it that they found it difficult to get the money to start production?

    Philantropists can do more but I am very doubtful that the primary aims of these organizations is to do philantropy.

  5. 5 mesfin

    zemedkum , one question, if clintons global initiative primary objective is not philantrophy what is it?

  6. 6 Stupid

    Make more money more publicity

  7. 7 Chereka

    Interesting discussion, but it sounds to me like zemedkun might be doing a little hairsplitting here, no offense.

    On your first point, now I am as cynical as they can come when it comes to US politics, but do you really think Bill Gates, perhaps the richest man in the world, really wants to risk his reputation and use this opportunity for the purpose of tax sheltering? I don’t know, but my inner most cynical self tells me, uh uh.

    On your second point, what is your position on it? And what is Clinton’s reason to make sure that the switch does not occur? Are the quality of drugs different? Does he have other motivations?

    Stupid, lol that’s a funny penname, do you really think Bill Clinton craves publicity and that’s why he is doing this?

    And what are the local governments you are refering to? Is it the states and cities in the US?

  8. 8 Chereka

    Oops, that last question about teh local gov’ts was directed at zemedkun as well. Sorry

  9. 9 ShalomShalom

    zemedkun,

    Who said philanthropy and ‘keeping a legacy for their family in the form of a tax shelter’ are mutually exclusive? You can always do some good to others while you do a whole lotta good to yourself first. Point is you’re doing something better than the Joe that is doing NO good at all to others.

    and no pharma companies in Ethio are producing ARVs yet. Looks like no one is THAT philanthropic yet :)

  10. 10 ShalomShalom

    You might like this:

    Philanthropy Smackdown
    Google vs. Gates for the World Charity Championship.

    “Google’s willfully innovative approach to philanthropy has made the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation seem like a 2.0 philanthropy in a 3.0 world.” More at http://www.slate.com/id/2149877/

  11. 11 zemedkun

    Chereka, why would Ken Lay who was so rich risk his reputiation? Where is the logic of your argument? [Not saying Bill Gates is like Ken Lay but not the most honest business man either---Think the antitrust lawsuits]

    Any way this is not about risking reputations, the laws are written for that purpose. It isn’t just bill gates.

    No offense taken.

  12. 12 Chereka

    Excuuuuse me zemedkun? Ken Lay??? Ken Lay built his reputation being a crook!!! He made his fortune through some really questionable and even illegal schemes. So, he had no reputation to uphold. Don’t you think you are putting the cart ahead of the horse?

    Also, you didn’t answer my second question. What is Clinton?s reason to make sure that the switch does not occur?

  13. 13 zemedkun

    Chereka,

    Either 1 – Clinton is so dum that he can’t grasp the idea that having locally manufactured, cheap drugs that don’t have to pay patent royalities are more likely to reach patients at prices they can afford. Or 2 – He is smart enough to realize that such a move would destroy any hopes pharmacuticals had of making money off of the cocktails being sold under patent. Now I don’t know if he approached the pharmacuticals to make the pitch for them, or if they approached him. But clearly this arrangement is a win-win for pharma and Clinton. He gets all the positive lime light as a fighter against Aids and the pharmas keep their patents [which is exactly what happened]. He could just as easily have chosen to put his weight on the other side and encouraged the removal of patent royalty requirements (especially considering most of the money the pharmacuticals claim was put into AIDS research came from the Federal Government). All is how you spin it.

    Before the Enron fiasco, Ken Lay was a visionary for many. It doesn’t take all that to be called a crook. Like I said, all is how you spin it.

  14. 14 Clara

    This article, _Shoutout! : bernos_ | African T-Shirts_ reveals that u understand
    exactly what you’re communicating about! I
    really totally approve. Thanks -Denisha

    my webpage … Clara

  15. 15 ????? ???? ??

    ????????????
    ??????????????
    ???????????????
    ????????????
    ?????????????????
    ?????????????????????
    ??????????????????????????!
    ????????????????????????????
    ??????????????????

  16. 16 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    ?????????? ???????
    ?????????????:???? ?????
    ???? ??? ??? ???????.
    ???????????????????????????????????????????????
    ???????????????????????????????
    ?????????????????????????
    ?????????????????
    ?????????????????????
    ??????????????????????????
    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? https://www.tentenok.com/product-10171.html

  17. 17 ????? ???? ????

    ??????? ?? – ??????? ??
    ??????????(?????)???.?????
    ??????????(?????)????
    ??????????(?????)?????
    ? ???????????????????!
    ? S?? ???????????????!
    ????????????????????????.
    ? ????????????????????????????????.
    ?????????????????????
    ??????????.???????
    ????? ???? ???? http://www.88kopi.com/n-goods/tings-202011023487.html

Leave a Reply