The stunning announcement of >$6B in philanthropic donations in one year by @mackenziescott deserves wider

Fine piece by @nkulish in the @nytimes that addresses some of the key issues.

https://t.co/UCvUCT9rru
But this should be just the start.

Important first to put the $6B total in context. Total grantmaking in 2019 by @darrenwalker at the @FordFoundation was ~$350M. Total at @Hewlett_Found was ~$450M.

So @mackenziescott is ~15x some of the largest and most discussed foundations.
To the best of my knowledge, what we know about her philanthropy stems from a total of two posts on @Medium.

No address. No website. No known staff. We don't even know much about the entities she's using -- DAFs, LLCs, private foundation?

https://t.co/y4kLry4XOT
What's interesting about her philanthropy?

*Proves it's not that difficult to give away a billion dollars.
*No strings attached giving - all general operating support over multiple years
*No reporting requirements, AFAIK
The anti-paternalist, non-technocratic approach is a refreshing counterpoint to prevailing trends. Nevertheless, her arrival as one of the largest and most important philanthropists means that she is wielding considerable power. And that power deserves our scrutiny.
Big philanthropy is the conversion of private assets into public influence. It is an exercise of power by the wealthy. It is a plutocratic element in a democratic setting.

Her preferences, and hers alone, determine a flow of $6b into American civil society.
And apparently there's much more to come.

Despite the astonishing ~6B in giving, she's almost certainly far wealthier at the end of 2020 than she was at the start. Amazon stock's value has soared.
True, she's under no legal obligation to be transparent. But that's a failure of our public policies. And of our expectations of philanthropists.
Directing scrutiny at philanthropists need not mean a default skepticism of their aspirations. It means that we citizens deserve the opportunity to assess the goals and strategies of big philanthropy.
One reason is that philanthropy with tax breaks. We subsidize @mackenziescott's DAF via forgone tax revenue.

Contrary to popular opinion, philanthropy is not the exercise of liberty to give away your own money. It's a tax-subsidized exercise of liberty.
But the more fundamental reason is that she enjoys $6B of funding power, with much more to come, as a signatory of the Giving Pledge.
One of the great chroniclers of such power is @AnandWrites. Any random dip into his timeline will afford a good example.

Here's the latest: https://t.co/tQ0aYrq59z
And beyond all these questions of philanthropy, there are even more foundational concerns about whether anyone should have a fortune of $30+ billion dollars in the first place.
Attitudes about philanthropy are changing. @mackenziescott is providing an example about how to do it differently. And public attitudes are changing too, moving beyond default gratitude for any charitable impulse.
Let 2021 bring more journalism and broader discussion of all kinds of philanthropy.

People to follow: @Philanthropy @InsidePhilanthr @AnandWrites @nkulish @SSIReview @HistPhil @Philliteracy @p2173

More from Society

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+


Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+

It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+

My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.

But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+

Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+

You May Also Like

कुंडली में 12 भाव होते हैं। कैसे ज्योतिष द्वारा रोग के आंकलन करते समय कुंडली के विभिन्न भावों से गणना करते हैं आज इस पर चर्चा करेंगे।
कुण्डली को कालपुरुष की संज्ञा देकर इसमें शरीर के अंगों को स्थापित कर उनसे रोग, रोगेश, रोग को बढ़ाने घटाने वाले ग्रह


रोग की स्थिति में उत्प्रेरक का कार्य करने वाले ग्रह, आयुर्वेदिक/ऐलोपैथी/होमियोपैथी में से कौन कारगर होगा इसका आँकलन, रक्त विकार, रक्त और आपरेशन की स्थिति, कौन सा आंतरिक या बाहरी अंग प्रभावित होगा इत्यादि गणना करने में कुंडली का प्रयोग किया जाता है।


मेडिकल ज्योतिष में आज के समय में Dr. K. S. Charak का नाम निर्विवाद रूप से प्रथम स्थान रखता है। उनकी लिखी कई पुस्तकें आज इस क्षेत्र में नए ज्योतिषों का मार्गदर्शन कर रही हैं।
प्रथम भाव -
इस भाव से हम व्यक्ति की रोगप्रतिरोधक क्षमता, सिर, मष्तिस्क का विचार करते हैं।


द्वितीय भाव-
दाहिना नेत्र, मुख, वाणी, नाक, गर्दन व गले के ऊपरी भाग का विचार होता है।
तृतीय भाव-
अस्थि, गला,कान, हाथ, कंधे व छाती के आंतरिक अंगों का शुरुआती भाग इत्यादि।

चतुर्थ भाव- छाती व इसके आंतरिक अंग, जातक की मानसिक स्थिति/प्रकृति, स्तन आदि की गणना की जाती है


पंचम भाव-
जातक की बुद्धि व उसकी तीव्रता,पीठ, पसलियां,पेट, हृदय की स्थिति आंकलन में प्रयोग होता है।

षष्ठ भाव-
रोग भाव कहा जाता है। कुंडली मे इसके तत्कालिक भाव स्वामी, कालपुरुष कुंडली के स्वामी, दृष्टि संबंध, रोगेश की स्थिति, रोगेश के नक्षत्र औऱ रोगेश व भाव की डिग्री इत्यादि।