What is interesting is the scale and who really benefits.
We consider this an excess, but to Paul Allen, it would be like us going out and buying a toy boat.
If Paul's worth is $200b that is 100,000 percent of $200m. Paul could buy 1,000 yachts.
Unlike most of us, he can employ hundreds of thousands of people directly and indirectly. So, 200 billion is actually tied up in utilizing their productivity and creating more wealth.
So, this is not static wealth, but dynamic wealth.
Compare this to the stimulus, which consists of money confiscated from productive people by an organization that by law cannot produce anything for profit -- government.
When the government says that it is investing in anything, that is not true. Government can only fund projects that by law cannot return that funding.
Said stimulus is then lavished, not invested, on bogus programs that only exist for reelecting the same people intent of stealing more dynamic wealth and converting it into even more static wealth.
People bitch about oppression, but don't realize that more government only means more oppression. Who wants to risk anything only to have it confiscated by a government or a warlord being supported by that government?
Take your time, I can wait...
I wish we had more like Paul Allen.
When my two oldest were involved in a local play, Narnia, I first made the connection between a reliable quote generator and the author, philosopher, Christian, man. That was almost 20 years ago.
Since then I've read to my children the Narnia series several times and I have consumed many more of his works. C.S. Lewis is still misunderstood amongst the secular community, as this Times article demonstrates.
They focus on his marketability. Why is C.S. Lewis still generating cash for us? They laud his enduring popularity, neglect his basic message, and go to great lengths to find logical loopholes for which to justify their own dismissive attempts on the baseline Christian message.
By baseline Christian message I mean that although he was a converted Anglican, he tried to avoid most doctrinal entanglements.
Here Oppenheimer quotes Mr. Maudlin, an executive editor at HarperOne, who admits as much but as puzzlement:
"Mr. Maudlin became an evangelical Protestant after reading Lewis in college. “But you meet Mormons or Catholics, and their favorite author might be C. S. Lewis,” he said."
The point is, C.S. Lewis outlined a basic Christian set of ideas and standard of behavior as set forth in scripture. There must be something more complicated here, how could this generate commercial demand, C.S. Lewis manage to package Christianity into something that most people can agree on? This is what drives those people nuts!
The one point that C.S. Lewis returns to is that either Jesus is who he says he is, or he is mad, or evil.
That is where this article seems to intentionally deviate. It is a point that just cannot be left alone.
In “Mere Christianity,” Lewis writes of Jesus: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell.”
This famous passage does not, on a second read, make much sense. After all, could not a great moral teacher have messianic delusions? But on a first read, it is quite persuasive, and classic Lewis. It is clear, confident and a bit humorous, and it offers a stark choice as it firmly suggests the right answer.
This concept cannot be left alone. It IS the great stumbling block and rock of offense. And, Oppenheimer's totally weak response, "could not a great moral teacher have messianic delusions?"
The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes AZ's new immigration laws. Arizona 's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:
"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?" - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
Try going to any other country without ID and see how far it gets you.