Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Great Non-believers: Bill Gates



The richest man in the world has given "37% of his wealth--more than $28 billion--to charitable causes, largely via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," says Forbes magazine. It's tempting to discount Gates' generosity on account of his wealth, but, as Forbes points out, if you "add up the donations made by billionaires Warren Buffett, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison and Steve Ballmer and you get about $2.55 billion--not even the equivalent of a decent tip on a $28-billion tab."

The Gates foundation spends the bulk of its money on global health, fighting AIDS and malaria, with education coming in second. (Obligatory shot at religion: None is wasted on building bigger churches, preachers' salaries, or proselytizing.)

Gates is an agnostic, although he seems to respect religious principles. In a PBS interview with David Frost, he said, "I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid." When a TIME reporter asked, "Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" he replied, "I don't have any evidence on that."

Despite my admiration for Gates's philanthropy, of course, I reserve the right to hate Microsoft. :-)

39 comments:

Wandering Coyote said...

I'm glad someone is paying attention to malaria. It actually affects more people yearly than AIDS and far more people are infected with it every year than AIDS. But it's a third world problem right?

Sadie Lou said...

mmmm--
I went to the Gates' website and I found that a large grant was given to the Lutheran World Relief Fund:
Baltimore, December 14, 2005 — Lutheran World Relief has received a $640,104 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to help nomadic communities in Niger avert food crises through new, innovative approaches that help bring vulnerable populations back from the brink of hunger.

So even though the Gates' primary focus is on Global Health, the Gates' are not in the habit of ignoring faith based ministries--which I think says more about their power than you make it sound in your post.
You said:
Obligatory shot at religion: None is wasted on building bigger churches, preachers' salaries, or proselytizing.

True enough but I think it's very cool of the Gates Foundation to include faith based organization into their cache of donations.
They don't let their biases get in the way of charity--something that cannot be said of everyone.
On a side note, Lutheran World Relief is an awesome organization teamed up with ACT:
LWR has a 30-year history working in Niger, most recently implementing an emergency food distribution program on behalf of the global aid alliance Action by Churches Together (ACT) in response to this summer’s acute food crisis. Though the crisis this year garnered a great deal of publicity, Niger’s food shortages are a chronic problem. LWR’s work there addresses immediate needs, while also working with local partner organizations to develop and implement innovative development strategies, such as the pastoralists project supported by the Gates Foundation, that can stave off future food crises.

“Even though the food crisis has faded from the headlines, it still continues and needs our constant attention,” Wolford said after returning from a trip to Niger in September. “It’s clear that we need to focus a great deal of energy and effort to address the natural and manmade forces that, left alone, will only continue the cycle of poverty and the possibility for starvation.”


That sounds like a faith based ministry that is out there doing it and not concerned with "preacher's salaries".

Foilwoman said...

JA: I reserve the right to hate Microsoft, but Bill Gates seems like one of those men who really improved upon marrying and having children (oh, I forgot, that's most men). He really does seem to believe (or obey his wife, who does believe) that investments must be made in the next generation, particularly in the poorest nations.

Sadie Lou: The Lutheran World Relief Fund is actually dedicated to providing relief rather than predicating receipt of relief on acceptance of or indoctrination in prosletyzing. So while it's run by a religious organization, it isn't like some (nameless) organizations that appear to think a donation for a church or prayer feeds or vaccinates children in India or Africa better than actually providing vaccination. As much of a softy as Bill Gates seems to be becoming in the "safe the world" stakes, he's still a pretty tough boss and negotiator. If he were to discover that the Lutheran World Relief Fund were funding, for example, religious education in Niger with the funds he gave rather than hunger relief projects (something I don't suspect LWRF of btw), I presume that LWRF would be out on the street begging for spare change from other, less generous, corporate tycoons.

Sadie Lou said...

foilwoman:
The Lutheran World Relief Fund is actually dedicated to providing relief rather than predicating receipt of relief on acceptance of or indoctrination in prosletyzing.

That was my point. JA always highlights the negativity in faith based organizations and I was trying to show merit--obviously, if Gates can respect LWR, then perhaps JA can stop making blanket statements?
and I highly doubt that while sharing the gospel message might not be their focus, it doesn't get said at all. I assure that when Christ and his message of salvation is the driving force behind a ministry--it shows; either by example or deed; maybe not by preaching.

Jewish Atheist said...

Sadie Lou,

Of course I realize that many faith-based charities do great work. I've said so before, in my Salvation Army post. However, many also waste money on the things I mentioned above, and some mingle their charitable works with trying to convert people. Obviously, there are many which don't have those problems as well.

You're right that I do focus on the negative aspects of religion more than the positive ones. This is partially because I believe that most good theists would be good even without religion, while many otherwise good people get hoodwinked by religion into donating their "charity" money towards bigger churches, higher salaries, political lobbying, prosyletizing, etc.

Your point is well-taken, though. I think I'll start showcasing theists I respect as well.

Sadie Lou said...

Your point is well-taken, though. I think I'll start showcasing theists I respect as well.

Thank you. You're a diplomatic blogger and have a refreshing willingness to be open minded. That's respectable and rare; I appreciate you.
:)

Random said...

"The Gates foundation spends the bulk of its money on global health, fighting AIDS and malaria, with education coming in second. (Obligatory shot at religion: None is wasted on building bigger churches, preachers' salaries, or proselytizing.)"

Call me a cynic if you will, but the Gates Foundation has recently started spending large sums of money in India, on roughly the same timescale as the Indian government has been showing serious interest in automating using Linux servers rather than Windows ones. I'm certain this is a coincidence and not money "wasted on... proselytizing" though:-)

I agree with Sadie Lou though, the dig was cheap and unnecessary - especially as it came without a hint of evidence.

J said...

Gates gives millions to the Discovery Insitute every year...sorry JA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Discovery_Institute

Although they article claims the give it for other issues than Intelligent Design stuff. But they pay for Bruce Chapmans salary, how impartial can they be...

Jewish Atheist said...

Sadie Lou,

Thanks. :)


Random,

You may be on to something there. There are also of course many other ulterior motives inextricably involved in charity work like tax deductions, "free" press/advertising, the goodwill of your fellow Americans, and that warm, tingly feeling inside.


J,

Egads! Gates is certainly willing to get closer to the line that I would be. As you allude to, the article adds, "The money of [the] grant is 'exclusive to the Cascadia project' on regional transportation, according to a Gates Foundation grant maker, and not to the Institute's other activities, including promotion of intelligent design."

I guess earmarking money to specific projects is one way to keep your charity from being wasted on causes you don't believe in. However, it seems to me that money is fungible, and if the Cascadia project is funded by Gates, more of the "other" money the Discovery Institute gets can be spent on the Intelligent Design nonsense.

When you have as much money to give away as the Gateses do, it's probably hard to find charities which are small enough to focus on a single issue, so perhaps such ideological compromise is necessary. For the rest of us, though, I recommend giving specifically to organizations who will get the highest percentage of your donation to the actual cause you're trying to support.

asher said...

Of course I realize that many faith-based charities do great work. I've said so before, in my Salvation Army post.

Actually you told us all to boycott giving anything to the Salvation Army because of their stance on making their employees sign a religious adherence note or something. Then you went on to say that you hated those terrible bell ringers and those red cans.

Sadie Lou said...

I think it was Stacey that mentioned hating the bell ringing but whomever said it, was being malicious and ignorant none the less. :)

Jewish Atheist said...

Yes asher, it wasn't me who hated the bell ringing. It's true that I did say not to give to SA, but I also said that "[i]f they were the only charity around, I would hold my nose and donate," and "Don't get the wrong idea, I do have a lot of respect for the Salvation Army. Nobody's perfect, and they do a lot of good."

The comments are still there; you can go check.

Jewish Atheist said...

(And asher, you're still not doing your research before commenting. You could have easily checked to see it wasn't me who commented about the bells.)

JDHURF said...

Dude that was me that said I didn't like the bell ringing as a child. Get your quotes right!

I have a different opinion than JA with regards to respecting the Salvation Army, they are a militant religious organization and needs to be either reformed or canned (my opinion).
Why is it that fundies always seem to be on the verge of religious “holy war”, here is the salvations army own “article of war”. Are you kidding me? A Christian group really needs to have an article of war? What inappropriate language and ideology!!

THE SALVATION ARMY
ARTICLES OF WAR
SIGNED BY ALL SALVATION ARMY SOLDIERS
Having received with all my heart the Salvation offered to me by the tender mercy of God, I do here and now acknowledge God the Father to be my King; God the Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, to be my Saviour; and God the Holy Spirit to be my Guide, Comforter and Strength; and I will, by His help, love, serve, worship, and obey this glorious God through time and through eternity.
Believing that The Salvation Army has been raised up by God, and is sustained and directed by Him, I do here declare that I am thoroughly convinced of the truth of the Army's teaching, that is to say:
1. I believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God and that they only constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice.
2. I believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver and Governor of all things and who is the only proper object of religious worship.
3. I believe that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.
4. I believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the divine and human natures are united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.
5. I believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.
6. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by His suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.
7. I believe that repentance toward God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary to Salvation.
8. I believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.
9. I believe that continuance in a state of Salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.
10. I believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be "wholly sanctified" and that their "whole spirit and soul and body" may "be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Thessalonians 5:23).
11. I believe in the immortality of the soul, in the resurrection of the body, in the general judgment at the end of the world, in the eternal happiness of the righteous and in the endless punishment of the wicked.
Therefore, I do here and now, and forever, renounce the world with all its sinful pleasures, companionships, treasures, and objects, and declare my full determination boldly to show myself a soldier of Jesus Christ in all places and companies, no matter what I may have to suffer, do or lose by so doing.
I do here and now declare that I will abstain from the use of all intoxicating liquor, and from the use of all baneful drugs, except when such drugs shall be ordered for me by a doctor.
I do here and now declare that I will abstain from the use of all low or profane language and from all impurity, including unclean conversation, the reading of any obscene book or paper at any time, in any company, or in any place.
I do here declare that I will not allow myself in any deceit or dishonesty; nor will I practice any fraudulent conduct in my business, my home or in any other relation in which I may stand to my fellow men; but that I will deal truthfully, honorably and kindly with all those who employ me or whom I may myself employ.
I do here declare that I will never treat any woman, child or other person, whose life, comfort or happiness may be placed within my power, in an oppressive, cruel or cowardly manner; but that I will protect such from evil and danger so far as I can, and promote, to the utmost of my ability, their present welfare and eternal Salvation.
I do here declare that I will spend all the time, strength, money and influence I can in supporting and carrying on the Salvation war, and that I will endeavor to lead my family, friends, neighbors and all others whom I can influence to do the same, believing that the sure and only way to remedy all the evils in the world is by bringing men to submit themselves to the government of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I do here declare that I will always obey the lawful orders of my officers, and that I will carry out to the utmost of my power all the orders and regulations of the Army; and, further, that I will be an example of faithfulness to its principles, advance to the utmost of my ability its operations, and never allow, where I can prevent it, any injury to its interest, or hindrance to its success.
And I do here and now call upon all present to witness that I have entered into this undertaking and sign these Articles of War of my own free will, feeling that the love of Christ, who died to save me, requires from me this devotion of my life to His service for the Salvation of the whole world, and therefore do here declare my full determination, by God's help, to be a true soldier of The Salvation Army till I die.

JDHURF said...

Wow I didn't realize their articles or war was so long, sorry about that!

Jack's Shack said...

I think it was Stacey that mentioned hating the bell ringing but whomever said it, was being malicious and ignorant none the less. :)

What is malicious or ignorant about saying that the bell ringing and begging is obnoxious and irritating.

oracle25 said...

Jdhurf, and this is supposed to convince us that this is a evil organization? This letter drips with sincerity and conviction. Why should it be "canned"? The only reason I can think of is that you hate religion and everything having to do with it. Am I right?

Stacey said...

What is malicious or ignorant about saying that the bell ringing and begging is obnoxious and irritating.

Exactly, Jack. I never said I hated anyone personally. But I said (and will say again) that I hate being accosted with that obnoxious bell-ringing everytime I enter a store in Dec. I think it is rude. I think it annoying. I think it is tacky. And based upon the info JA provided about this specific organization, I despise it even more.

asher said...

I stand corrected. You can hairsplit all you want....or as our last democrat president had his press secretary say "I won't parse the statement."

Tonight, we can see Walking the Bible....wonder what reaction you guys can give to that one.

Sadie Lou said...

Stacey & Jdhurf--
Turning your nose up in the air towards the so called "begging"--to use your vernacular--is exactly what is wrong with the world.
People whine for things to be done in this country to improve the quality of life for everyone and yet here you two are, annoyed and disturbed during your Christmas shopping, because someone is ringing a bell to draw attention to the donation bucket.
I'm gonna see what I can do to have the harmless bell replaced with a cow bell--but just in your area.
:)

Stacey said...

People whine for things to be done in this country to improve the quality of life for everyone

Don't talk to me about charity. I probably give more $$$ to charity than you make in a year. Want to compare tax returns?

Just because I do not like to be accosted by annoying bell-ringing when I am shopping does not mean that I do not give heavily to charity and do not contribute to tikkun olam.

Your non-argument is ridiculous.

Jack's Shack said...

People whine for things to be done in this country to improve the quality of life for everyone and yet here you two are, annoyed and disturbed during your Christmas shopping, because someone is ringing a bell to draw attention to the donation bucket.
Sadie,

Ignorance becomes you, or so comments like this seem to suggest. There are millions of people who do not do any xmas shopping and wouldn't notice if the day disappeared forever, nor would it be missed.

What is wrong with this world is the attitude that we should be more caring and thoughtful during one brief moment of the year. We should give of ourselves all year long. What is wrong with this world is people who think that they have a religious obligation to try and stuff their beliefs down everyone elses throat and then cry when people complain about it.

What is wrong with this world is the self-indulgent and narcissitic manner of so many who think that they offer the sole solution to the ills of mankind and their unwillingess and inability to accept that there could be multiple ways there.

Plurality of views is a blessing that far too many ignore. I don't like the simple approach of suggesting one size fits all and I don't like the stupid cowbells and attitude that so many of these foolish religious groups. And if I had my way every one of these groups would be forced to remove their stupid booths from the front of every shopping mall/store etc. And that goes for all religious groups and the stupid cookie selling girl scouts.

Sadie Lou said...

What is wrong with this world is the attitude that we should be more caring and thoughtful during one brief moment of the year. We should give of ourselves all year long.

This is what is known as a Strawman Argument. You are building an argument around the assumption that people only give to charity one moment out of the year--it just doesn't hold up.

and it goes without saying that Stacey's flashy "I donate more than you do" argument is just a self-promoting holier-than-thou attitude that I'm sure she hates in everyone else but herself.

So, my final word on the subject:
generalize Christians all you want--if it makes you feel better about yourself. It's the mature thing to do, obviously.

Jack's Shack said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jack's Shack said...

This is what is known as a Strawman Argument. You are building an argument around the assumption that people only give to charity one moment out of the year--it just doesn't hold up.

You really have balls to suggest that but I'll refrain from pointing out the consistent lack of substance/fact in your responses.

The reality is that there is consistent push during the holiday season in which people suggest that it is the time for bestowing goodwill towards all men. It is a foolish and shortsighted attitude and I have no problem pointing it out.

You do realize that you started this silly line of thought with your initial insightful comment.

I think it was Stacey that mentioned hating the bell ringing but whomever said it, was being malicious and ignorant none the less. :)

The point of making that is still beyond me, but you followed it up with stunning comments like

People whine for things to be done in this country to improve the quality of life for everyone and yet here you two are, annoyed and disturbed during your Christmas shopping, because someone is ringing a bell to draw attention to the donation bucket.

JA already discussed why the Salvation Army does not try to improve the quality of life for everyone. But I suppose that mentioning facts is considered to be a strawman argument.

So, my final word on the subject:
generalize Christians all you want--if it makes you feel better about yourself. It's the mature thing to do, obviously.


No, the mature thing to do is ask you to read carefully. I never mentioned a specific religous group, in fact I specifically pointed out that stood for all groups. If you were less provincial and shortsighted you would have noticed that significant fact.

Sadie Lou said...

What is wrong with this world is people who think that they have a religious obligation to try and stuff their beliefs down everyone elses throat and then cry when people complain about it.

So what exactly is your beef, Jack? The cow bell or the message? Because the Salvation Army bell ringers might say "God Bless You" once in awhile but I haven't seen a single one stuff their beliefs down anyone's throat. Have you?

The reality is that there is consistent push during the holiday season in which people suggest that it is the time for bestowing goodwill towards all men. It is a foolish and shortsighted attitude and I have no problem pointing it out.

I actually agree with you here but you do realize that the Salvation Army does more than just the holiday push, right?
It may be "beyond you" to understand why I think complaining about the ringing bell is ignorant but that's because we don't see eye to eye about the good that the Salvation Army does and they are a Christian organization so of course they are going to adhere to their principles and beliefs and it is ignorant to try and force them to adhere to your standard of charity vs. their own.

Look, I can come off as insulting and self righteous and I apologize for that. I just get annoyed with the overwhelming negativity aimed at other people that don't share your particular worl view.

and for the record, hurling insults at girl scouts is just ridiculous--it's laughable.
There is nothing wrong with fundraisers. I don't believe in going door to door but easy enough to ignore the selling of cookies in front of the store--come on.

Jack's Shack said...

Sadie Lou,

You see the problem with engaging in debate is that I ask for fact and you provide rhetoric, that is a snide way of me saying that you don't do this well.

BTW, that is a reference to your continuing to ignore my comment that I take issue with all religious groups that raise money this way which is why I called you provincial. In this case that means that you fail to see beyond your own sphere.

I don't think that it is kind or appropriate to try and shame people into giving money as some of these groups do. I don't think that the message that we should give more during the holidays is a smart or good message. I don't like the message that a lot of these groups send.

And I am not going to apologize for pointing out bigotry and homophobia when I see it. You know you claim that they are trying to help the world but ignore their inconsistent stance.

If I was trying to hurl insults at the Girlscouts it would have been clear, they are an afterthought.

If you really want to know what I think I'll try and sum it up here. I think that we have a social responsibility that works in conjunction with personal accountability. That means that we should help others improve their situations so that they can help themselves.

In practical terms that means that I think that welfare recipients should be given aid for a short term, long enough for them to get back on their feet at which point they should be required to support themselves. If they are mentally/physically incapable then that is a different story in which case different rules should apply.

I think that the the charitable giving should be phrased as a year round effort and that as I mentioned there are problems with suggesting that one period of time should be more important then another solely based upon the calendar and not need.

That is about it for the moment, but I have lots more to say.

Sadie Lou said...

You see the problem with engaging in debate is that I ask for fact and you provide rhetoric, that is a snide way of me saying that you don't do this well.

The funny thing about your choice of words, is that there was not one question mark in either of your comments to me.
How can you "ask for fact" when you pose no such questions?
Perhaps YOU don't do this very well?

I saw your "comment" about all "religious" groups but that's not really asking me anything, is it?
So you have issue with all religious groups, fine, that's your hang up--my question to you was why complain about the bell and then mark your issue as faith based ministries shoving their agenda down people's throats? I specifically asked you when you saw a bell ringer shove their beliefs down someone's throat and you failed to give an answer.
I also posed a question as to why a Christian charity should have to mold their morals and values to fit your standard of such.
You ignored that as well.
What questions of yours have I ignored?

Jack's Shack said...

Sadie,

My suggestion is that you read things carefully and consider how you reached this point.

You launched a personal attack on Stacey without provocation. You made blanket statements that are patently false such as
People whine for things to be done in this country to improve the quality of life for everyone
And you ask questions that are immaterial to the dialogue.

The question here is not how often the fercockteh bell ringers proselytize or engage in questionable behavior because the answer is that they do.

The real question is why you cannot understand how this is offensive to people and why you insist on labelelling it in pejorative terms.

And the even bigger question is whether there is a point to this. I don't see it.

I made my position very clear. Have a good day, I am done with this for now.

Jewish Atheist said...

Let's try to keep it civil, folks.

And Jack, I don't agree with your idea that charities shouldn't push harder at certain times of the year. If people are more willing to give during Christmas (or Rosh Hashanah or whatever) then charities should take advantage of that.

Sadie Lou, maybe what rubbed people the wrong way was when you said, talking to a bunch of Jews, that they were "disturbed during [their] Christmas shopping," which makes you sound oblivious to the fact that none [or very few, anyway] of us celebrate Christmas. (Although I'm sure you know that.) On it's own it wouldn't be so bad, but in a Christian country some of us non-Christians get tired of people acting like everybody is like them.

I do think Jack over-reacted though.

Stacey said...

You launched a personal attack on Stacey without provocation.

Yes, she did. I wasn't even participating in this discussion. Thank you, Jack.

Sadie Lou said...

JA--
Yeah, I didn't think some of my comments all the way through. I see red when people attack a serviceable charity just because it's principles do not support their own. A Christian charity can give money to and hire anyone they want--you and I might not agree with leaving certain people groups out--but we could found our own charitable organization that does.
I still find it very dodgy of Jack to ignore the question of bell ringers cramming their religious beliefs down people's throats. Everyone and their mother knows they don't. It's the Salvation Army as a whole that disagrees with--not the bell ringers (they just annoy him)

Stacey--
I said it before in that very thread and whether or not you were the first to comment on the bell ringers, you certainly already addressed the comment I made earlier and directed at you.
So, it was an after thought that was brought up here in this discussion but it's still the same discussion you were a part of--in any event, I'll apologize for attacking you on a personal level but you had your chance to defend yourself back on the Salvation Army discussion; don't act so violated, you said it.

Stacey said...

And I stand by it.

Foilwoman said...

JA: Please, let me make a real ad hominem attack, I beg you.

Jack's Shack said...

If people are more willing to give during Christmas (or Rosh Hashanah or whatever) then charities should take advantage of that.

JA,

That is because people have been trained to respond like Pavlov's dog during those times. As I stated earlier I think that we could just as easily train people to give year round. I think that it is a mistake that we don't make a better effort to do this.


I still find it very dodgy of Jack to ignore the question of bell ringers cramming their religious beliefs down people's throats. Everyone and their mother knows they don't. There is nothing dodgy about it. I have had the bell ringers try and convince me to give because it would make jesus happy. They would have gladly continued going down that path but I wouldn't let them.

They are people and as such there are those that are good and those that are bad among them. None of this changes the fact that they are annoying.

Sadie Lou said...

There is nothing dodgy about it. I have had the bell ringers try and convince me to give because it would make jesus happy. They would have gladly continued going down that path but I wouldn't let them.
Thanks for finally answering the question. I was afraid you were going to say that--now I just have to take your word for it. I generally tend to believe that people have good intentions, so I'll assume that you are telling me the truth here--in which case, I stand corrected. I will note that telling someone "...because it will make Jesus happy." doesn't sound like cramming a belief down anyone's throat. Your choice of words implies that bell ringers never shut up about the gospel when in my own experience, I've never even heard them speak much beyond, "Thank You."

Anonymous said...

JA, Gates is actually an atheist. He's famous for it among those who know. He's just smart enough to know how unpopular it is, so he never makes a public issue of it.

Anonymous said...

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-list-of-jewish-millionaires.html

Dibyamani Lingkhim Rai said...

I've seen people who claim to be God fearing but are not ready to part with their money to help the need and the poor. While Bill Gates may be an atheist, he is honest about it and has no issues regarding his philanthropic gestures. Instead of finding fault with him and his comany Microsoft we should be applauding him, dont you think so? It reminds of one saying:
There are three kinds of people.
The first kind makes things happen. They are the most wonderful of all. The second kind dont make things happen but at they appreciate the things done by others. They are good people. The third kind neither make things happen nor appreciate what others do. They are the worst lot and should be avoided like the plague.

dibyamani@gmail.com