Charlie Rose

shibumi  02/03/2013 05:09 AM Report

we need more people who can invest in the world and its people and future...Laura seems a bit naive but she has a good heart with good intentions and lots of money...

i wish he great success in her philanthropic adventures...

it always feels great to help others and make a difference.

finalfantasytown  11/18/2011 08:05 AM Report

I am really curious about her project. In my mind, philanthropy is religious because it aims to understand or even finish GOD design beyond but very related to her own culture, while the target currently has no ability to uncover it. I don't think the core of philanthropy is based on sympathy. What Laura said is very clear that Giving 2.0 is to do what they want to do. Nothing to do with sympathy doesn't matter, I think.

doesthatmakesense2  11/17/2011 02:27 PM Report

Yes, it’s easy to criticize Laura. But why? Really? She could live the rest of her life in luxury without lifting a finger to help anyone, yet she works relentlessly to give away money/time/experience to help people, while inspiring others to do the same. And she helps people give strategically.

Many not-for-profit groups are strong in heart and vision, but weak in administration or follow through. The organization she started, SV2, partners professionals who lend their money and expertise to fill in some of those gaps, strengthening the impact of the non-profit.

I doubt that kids in East Palo Alto, who have the prospect of a better future because they are now succeeding in school thanks to her philanthropy, are criticizing her.

Ellen_Dibble  11/16/2011 10:07 AM Report

NoMore, I don't visit enough to have a particular view on REMant's usage of this site. Agreed, I don't have a picture of the experience that frames that outlook, but few posters here include self-revelation. On the other hand, the grand truth of this generation may be that online chatter is actually moving the conversation, much as Charlie Rose and his team devote themselves to moving the conversation, but with the tools that we have. And each person finds their footing; some sites seem like sandboxes, places for exercise of the human joy in play, disconnected from responsibilities. Other sites seem like sounding boards that resonate throughout the news cycles very efficiently, not so much carrying an individual's vision but melding the many into a chorus, which though it could be ignored, each individual goes forth fortified, understanding better the pros and cons, the angles. So, this is not a million-year-old technology. It takes a while for each of us to find the right balance, the most effective way to use it. If someone uses this as a sort of personal blog, since not so many come here to actually discuss things, why not? If a vigorous give-and-take is desired by REMant, I could certainly suggest other forums. I know I do that: Listen here, discuss it elsewhere. Maybe that's bad.

NoMore  11/16/2011 07:53 AM Report

I agree with Treeman. I have been a frequent viewer of Charlie's episodes online and it appears that REMant lacks any sort of life. He is clearly well-educated and has some perspicacious ideas, but enough is enough. Get out a bit, join a club,or do something productive! Do you live in an old age home and have nothing to do all day? You are addicted to this site and you need help!

Ellen_Dibble  11/15/2011 10:17 PM Report

I didn't hear her perspective on the Occupy Wall Street movement, which seems in many ways to match her concerns, i.e., to improve the opportunities around us, especially in the light of what capitalism hath wrought.

Oh, wait, she can tell us exactly what capitalism hath wrought, which is a new order of philanthropy. Let not the government of The People, for The People, and by The People decide how resources might best help the entirety, for one thing, because the Government of the People is broke. Instead, it falls to people like Laura with the long last name, who takes this seriously and has written a book.

The posts here about tithing to the church (or mosque, various religions), I don't know the exact history, but I believe in the time of the Holy Roman Empire, the tithes might have been a part of actually running the empire such as it was, a sort of FICA tax, for the institutions that cared for foundlings and widows and so on.

The Occupy movement has some of the questions well in focus, and if they can sort of pray till they create a the modern equivalent of the burning bush, whatever sign would approve their direction, then... It seems it doesn't matter that this or that economist or artist has a vision of a path into the future. I think Lessig was saying this; it has to be broadly grasped. So I was wondering, and don't really see it. The object is to extract as much as possible, without even arguing the objective of siphoning that to the top, where as much as possible is pure profit, and can be distributed according to who holds the stock.

That is a sort of legacy of the slaveholder mindset: extract profit. (Then you redistribute it.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/15/2011 05:33 PM Report

Charlie, this is a billionaire's daughter married to a billionaire. Hello? Her world view just might be a wee bit out of touch.

There is a church on almost every corner in America and guess what they want you to do? Yes, tithe.

Dave Ramsey is on the radio five or six days a week and what does he say: "tithe, tithe, tithe".

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/daves-advice-on-tithing-and-giving/lifeandmoney_church/

Perhaps Laura might fall to earth one day and be amongst us mortals. She is pretty though so there is the eye candy that made you giddy. Thank you for that.

treeman  11/15/2011 02:40 PM Report

Please, I beg you with my utmost sincerity, REMant, stop commenting like you do. Write your thoughts and research in a form of a diary to yourself.

You have no obligation to share your point of view with the rest of the world.

I am not a rich man, not an influential man. But I tell you with all the strength of my soul, you give a bad name to the rest of us because you write comments like a mad man whose life is full of loneliness and without alternative possibilites of expression.

Try:

* becoming an artist

* writing a bit of poetry

Stop this!

OLAN  11/15/2011 02:16 PM Report

Yes, but not everyone is religious and the poor is always with us. If we can use whatever means to help, that is great. After all those who are religious can use some of these techniques too.

REMant  11/15/2011 10:58 AM Report

Ms Arrillaga-Andreessen appears to be a perpetual student, which is good, though it seems she stopped short of getting at the truth of this, which is that philanthropy cannot be disentangled from the process of making money in our system in the first place, and represents an attitude not only of sympathy, but also of the social control inherent in evangelical religion. Thus Adam Smith echoing Mandeville, who devoted himself to exposing its hypocrisy, wrote it is not from benevolence that the butcher engages in his trade, and New England theologians distinguished interested and disinterested benevolence. That's also the difference between translating charity as used by St Paul as sympathy, and its actual meaning as love of God. The latter removes the distance between giver and recipient, agent and client, and supports the fundamental republican idea that we are created equal and that our interest is best served by it. Jesus' two commandments - love God and do unto others as we would have others do - become the same thing. Sympathy gets us nowhere with our children as Michelle Rhee remarked rather directly recently, is of no help to our economy either, and as we've gotten poorer and the distance between rich and poor, givers and clients, become wider, philanthropy has grown proportionately. I thought Ms Arrillaga-Andreessen a rather perfect illustration of a Bay Area type, much like the rest of the Left Coast. But it should not be surprising since these "Awakenings" have followed the westward movement of the frontier from the beginning.