The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 13)

David P. Bennett br> Chicago, Illinois /p>

Apparently everyone except you feels there are already too many damn people on this planet, and the population keeps increasing geometrically everyday as families, in the third world especially, keep squirting out babies. As health increases, people live longer and infant mortality goes down. The population and resulting sprawl (and poverty) then increase at an increased rate, gobbling up more resources (including misapplied charity monies).

We don't need any more people on this planet. We could function just as well with half. Easily. Why must we help third world nations develop if the result will be greater population and more mouths to feed? The earth's resources are finite. The space on earth's surface is finite. Family planning makes perfect sense (not necessarily Planned Parenthood's approach). Of course, deciding what the plan should be will never probably happen because no one will agree. China was smart enough to know about what over-population was doing to their country. They enforced small families (democracy is sometimes way too slow). Yes, birth control and abortion were and are widespread there as they are here in the U.S.

p>As an aside, I'd like to know is why is abortion considered murder by some and birth control not, especially by those who think God is somehow in control of all birth (shoot away and let God sort 'em out!)? Truth is, God gave us the brains to figure out how to improve our planet as well as the common sense to know that the burgeoning population is causing increased misery and untimely deaths. Also, we can still experience wealth and efficient allocation of resources without population growth. Economic growth and population growth need not be co-related, although some people act as if it were the case. We need more planning and less mindless sprawl. We all cherish our freedom, but it's hard to be free when everyone is crowding each other out. br> -- John Sperling , Republican br> Las Vegas, Nevada /p>

I could not keep from chuckling over the reports of Warren Buffett donating the bulk of his fortune to a private foundation. For years, Mr. Buffett has been an outspoken advocate of the inheritance tax, destroyer of family farms and small businesses. Yet when it came to his own estate, he chose to divert it so it would not be largely confiscated by the government.

Of course, even after taxes his fortune would still have been sufficient to endow generations of Buffetts. Perhaps he feared that bequeathing riches to his descendants would spawn legions of Paris Hiltons. Heirheads living absurd lives may not be the legacy he wanted associated with his name. Perhaps he agrees with Andrew Carnegie's maxim that the man who dies rich should be ashamed, so that forking it over to any charitable end use is better than checking out with a big checking account. Perhaps Messrs. Buffett and Gates genuinely believe they are doing good with their charity, although Jay Homnick is right that the Gates Foundation's support of abortion surely will turn out to be wildly destructive rather than beneficial for the intended recipients. Perhaps these modern Midases have simply fallen prey to Liberal Guilt and are trying to buy their way into heaven.

In the long run, however, we all know what will happen to Warren's wealth and Bill's billions. Like Rockefeller before them, they have created another United Nations: a self-serving bureaucracy of international do-gooders, accountable to no one and accomplishing nothing. The money will be squandered and embezzled, and gradually put to uses completely at odds with the original intent of the donors. Within a few decades, their foundation will be unrecognizable to its long-dead founders.

p>The world would be better off if they gave their money directly to ordinary people. Therefore, I invite all the billionaires reading

topics:
Taxes, Business, Social Security, Satire, Sports, Abortion, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, United Nations, NATO, Energy, Oil