The Slate 60 Huffington Virtue Remix: Summary
By Josh Daniel
Posted Thursday, March 2, 2000, at 3:09 AM ETConsider the Slate 60 shaken up. After adjusting this year's rankings to account for gifts both selfless and selfish, we found that about as many donors had moved up (27) as moved down (29). Only five had stayed in the same place. (There were actually 61 people on this year's Slate 60.) Most donors moved fewer than five spots, but a handful dropped more than 20 places, and one moved up 13. Bill and Melinda Gates remain on top—which isn't surprising, considering we'd have to lop off 93 percent of their donations to put them in a tie for second place.
You can find the results of the Virtue Remix, as calculated by Slate's Joseph Lacson, on one of two charts. The condensed version shows each donor's name, new ranking, original ranking, gross donation amount, total percentage points added or deducted, and adjusted donation amount. The full chart has all that information, but it also lists each category for which we added or took away percentage points, broken down by individual gift. The full chart could take several minutes to load and requires quite a bit of horizontal scrolling. It is not for the faint of heart.
A few other highlights from this year's Slate 60 Virtue Remix:
- Forty-three donors had more points taken away than added. Four gained points, and 14 had no change.
- Donors were most often penalized for gifts of buildings named after themselves. Carl Icahn dropped 20 notches for a bricks-and-mortar donation to Princeton University; Steven Ferencz Udvar-Hazy dropped a hefty 27 spots for his largess to the Smithsonian.
- The biggest change, and biggest drop, belongs to William A. and Joan Porter. Their $25 million gift to MIT places them in a tie for 27th on the original Slate 60, but they plummet 30 spots to a tie for 57th on the Remix for donating a) to build a building at b) an already well-endowed institution that is c) related to William Porter's business, then d) naming it after him.
- Craig and Susan McCaw got the biggest bump: They moved up 13 places--from a tie for 47th to 34--for $15 million in grants to the Foundation for Community Development and the Nelson Mandela Foundation, picking up points for helping to overcome poverty and for encouraging self-sufficiency.
Despite the best efforts of Joseph Lacson and the rest of Slate's crack research team, we may not have given credit—or blame—everywhere it's due. (Read some more fine print here.) If you see something we've overlooked, please post a note in "The Fray." Our Virtue Police will be checking it regularly.
Josh Daniel is Slate's managing editor.
The Slate 60 Huffington Virtue Remix: Summary
By Josh Daniel
Posted Thursday, March 2, 2000, at 3:09 AM ETHighlights from The Fray:
Those who donate money to help people in foreign countries certainly deserve more points. Not only are they helping people in dire need, but they are doing it a manner that doesn't upgrade their name within their nearby community and improve just their environment. They are tearing down tribal barriers and defining people in terms of their souls--not their political associations. Its easy to feign outrage at the existence of homeless people that one sees on the way to work; but it takes a truly remarkable person to feel compassion for a distant, diseased, starving person in Central Africa. Not only does he/she need help more than a New York panhandler, but he/she doesn't fall under any ethnic/political category that benefits the giver, and nobody in the remote village will know the giver to think highly of him.
--Anonymous
(To reply, click here.)
It is unfortunate that the adjustments to the "Slate 60" do not include qualifications based on the origin of the wealth of the donor. The inclusion of the Milken Family Foundation is an affront to thousands of working families whose retirement funds were looted by corporate raiders financed by the sale of junk bonds orchestrated by Mr. Milken. It is also a cruel slap in the face of the American taxpayer who was forced to redirect billions of dollars from needed social programs to rescue insolvent S&Ls bankrupted by participation in ridiculous real estate ventures financed with these worthless securities.
--Kenneth Jensen
(To reply, click here.)
Who does Miss Huffington think she is that she can so readily criticize other people's gifts? The bottom line here: it is their money, to do with as they please. Socialism is dead, and, I had thought, with it died those who thought that some external and arbitrary value set could be applied to how one disposes of one's money. Obviously, socialism has simply gone underground, to rise in the form of politically correct and self-righteous statements about how someone else uses their money. Miss Huffington has every right to have an opinion regarding how money should be spent. Her money. She (and I, and anyone else) has nothing to contribute regarding how anyone else spends their cash, no matter how much or how little is involved. If she is so worried about the issue, I would recommend that she perform some soul-searching and attempt to determine how she should be spending her money. If it is more important to her that certain charities be funded, then perhaps a little less money spent on operas and other cultural events could be placed there. But that is her choice, because it is her money, and neither my opinion, nor that of any pundit should matter.
--Joe Gherlone
(To reply, click here.)
Elmer Rasmussen's gift to the Anchorage Museum shouldn't simply be downplayed because he is a nonegenarian. While I'm not privy to his finances, his major asset was probably the bank he founded, National Bank of Alaska, which sold recently to the Bank of America. If this is the case, he hardly could have donated money he didn't have, before he had it. He also certainly could have kept it in his estate.
George Soros may have donated $15 million to charity, but I suspect that he has donated much more to causes which are not tax deductible, such as his efforts to try to force demagogues declare a truce in the drug wars.
--Frank Smith
(To reply, click here.)
(3/6)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
How Exactly Do They Measure Snowfall? With a Ruler?
If You Want To Be Lectured on Racial Politics by Matt Damon, Go See Invictus
If You Want To Be Lectured on Racial Politics by Disney, Go See The Princess and the Frog
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Is the American Romance With the Drive-Through Finally Over?
Slate Readers Pick the Year's 10 Most Interesting News Stories
Highlights from The Fray:
Those who donate money to help people in foreign countries certainly deserve more points. Not only are they helping people in dire need, but they are doing it a manner that doesn't upgrade their name within their nearby community and improve just their environment. They are tearing down tribal barriers and defining people in terms of their souls--not their political associations. Its easy to feign outrage at the existence of homeless people that one sees on the way to work; but it takes a truly remarkable person to feel compassion for a distant, diseased, starving person in Central Africa. Not only does he/she need help more than a New York panhandler, but he/she doesn't fall under any ethnic/political category that benefits the giver, and nobody in the remote village will know the giver to think highly of him.
--Anonymous
(To reply, click here.)
It is unfortunate that the adjustments to the "Slate 60" do not include qualifications based on the origin of the wealth of the donor. The inclusion of the Milken Family Foundation is an affront to thousands of working families whose retirement funds were looted by corporate raiders financed by the sale of junk bonds orchestrated by Mr. Milken. It is also a cruel slap in the face of the American taxpayer who was forced to redirect billions of dollars from needed social programs to rescue insolvent S&Ls bankrupted by participation in ridiculous real estate ventures financed with these worthless securities.
--Kenneth Jensen
(To reply, click here.)
Who does Miss Huffington think she is that she can so readily criticize other people's gifts? The bottom line here: it is their money, to do with as they please. Socialism is dead, and, I had thought, with it died those who thought that some external and arbitrary value set could be applied to how one disposes of one's money. Obviously, socialism has simply gone underground, to rise in the form of politically correct and self-righteous statements about how someone else uses their money. Miss Huffington has every right to have an opinion regarding how money should be spent. Her money. She (and I, and anyone else) has nothing to contribute regarding how anyone else spends their cash, no matter how much or how little is involved. If she is so worried about the issue, I would recommend that she perform some soul-searching and attempt to determine how she should be spending her money. If it is more important to her that certain charities be funded, then perhaps a little less money spent on operas and other cultural events could be placed there. But that is her choice, because it is her money, and neither my opinion, nor that of any pundit should matter.
--Joe Gherlone
(To reply, click here.)
Elmer Rasmussen's gift to the Anchorage Museum shouldn't simply be downplayed because he is a nonegenarian. While I'm not privy to his finances, his major asset was probably the bank he founded, National Bank of Alaska, which sold recently to the Bank of America. If this is the case, he hardly could have donated money he didn't have, before he had it. He also certainly could have kept it in his estate.
George Soros may have donated $15 million to charity, but I suspect that he has donated much more to causes which are not tax deductible, such as his efforts to try to force demagogues declare a truce in the drug wars.
--Frank Smith
(To reply, click here.)
(3/6)