While Gates and Buffett ostensibly work to increase charitable giving by the wealthiest Americans, the recipients are often animal torturers.
Like monopolist and open source opponent Bill Gates, funder of primate torture at Duke University and vivisection in Africa and Warren Buffett who has made the Geico he owns insert ads for Omaha Steaks in which he is invested,, the billionaires who have joined the Gates Buffett pledge to give half their money
away before death frequently give to pain inflicting animal research.
Ted Turner is the country's biggest land owner and bison murderer. He has worked to promote an end to global heating while himself creating mammal concentration camps in which grazing deforests the planet.
Michael Bloomberg has been a major funder of Johns Hopkins mammal torture.Johns Hopkins is the institution in which Dr Blalock developed the Blalock Press, a savage machine which tests how many pounds of pressure a dog's bones can take before
breaking. HBO tried to glamorize Blalock in a movie.
Sanford Weill, funder of vivisection and primate
torture at Cornell University.
Ron Perelman, funder of primate torture at Cornell
David Rockefeller... funding animal torture at Rockefeller Univ.
John Morgridge supports animal research groups .. as a trustee of primate torturing Stanford and
promoter of Wisconsin research (at the Univ of
Wisconsin, the Justice Dept has funded tasering
of pigs while the Navy has killed sheep giving
them the bends. The Univ of Wisconsin is a primate torture school. Morgridge
supports the Nature Conservancy, turned by Henry Paulson into a cattle concentration camp network
which is supplying Goldman Sachs invested fast food companies with mammal flesh.
David Rubinstein of Bethesda Maryland who signed the pledge is a cofounder of the
Carlyle Group, that group which helps politicians leaving their stolen thrones
transition to shameless war profiteers. G H W Bush and John Major, former PM of
the UK are 2 examples. Carlyle Group weapons
have killed many people and animals.
Julian Robertson after profiteering from sub prime mortgages which caused
the foreclosure on tens of millions of Americans now owns a 6000 acre sheep
and cattle concentration camp in New Zealand, a country notorious for the cruelty
of its live shipping of mammals to foreign ports for slaughter.
John Arnold profiteered at Enron while millions were harmed.
He went on to found Centaurus which is invested not in nonviolent
energy but in natural gas, whose mongers pricegouge the public.
Larry Ellison of Oracle, in the news for defrauding
the government and offering kickbacks illegally at some universities.
List of Pledgers:
Paul G. Allen
Laura and John Arnold
Michael R. Bloomberg
Eli and Edythe Broad
Warren Buffett
Michele Chan and Patrick Soon-Shiong
Ann and John Doerr
Bill and Melinda Gates
Barron Hilton
Jon and Karen Huntsman
Joan and Irwin Jacobs
George B. Kaiser
Elaine and Ken Langone
Gerry and Marguerite Lenfest
Lorry I. Lokey
George Lucas
Alfred E. Mann
Bernie and Billi Marcus
Thomas S. Monaghan
Tashia and John Morgridge
Pierre and Pam Omidyar
Bernard and Barbro Osher
Ronald O. Perelman
Peter G. Peterson
T. Boone Pickens
Julian H. Robertson, Jr.
David Rockefeller
David M. Rubenstein
Herb and Marion Sandler
Vicki and Roger Sant
Walter Scott, Jr.
Jim and Marilyn Simons
Jeff Skoll
Tom Steyer and Kat Taylor
Jim and Virginia Stowers
Ted Turner
Sanford and Joan Weill
Shelby White
Which Billionaire Has Not Caused The Blood, Sweat, and Tears
of Innocent Human Beings, Animals?
See also:
http://www.all-creatures.org/saen http://www.stopanimaltests.com Some of these billionaires (Gates, Bloomberg,
Rockefeller and others) are proponents of
decreased population. However the pharmaceutical
companies with which they are connected
have in the guise of vaccine disseminators
been sterilizing women in the Philippines, Africa
etc.without their knowledge.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following comment
Highlighting our differences
07.08.2010 12:07
"Ted Turner is the country's biggest land owner and bison murderer. He has worked to promote an end to global heating while himself creating mammal concentration camps in which grazing deforests the planet."
UH -- the "project" in this case being to establish a wildlife corridor north to south acrsoss the country. And bison rather than cattle because those are NATIVE to that ecosystem (so it's restoring the bison too). Hardly "concentration camps" of bison but yes, the herds are "harvested" from as the Turner mega "ranches" serving as beads* on the corridor are intended to be self supporting projects.
WHY? Because even Ted Turner's entire fortune, vast as it is, couldn't fund a project on this scale otherwise. So being an "environmental" (concerned with habitat and populations of animals) and not an "animal rights" (concerned with individual animals) this is acceptable. So some of the bison are sold to be eaten to other people who eat animals.
OK then --- some of us are just "animal rights" and some of us are just "environmental" and some of us are both (which limits us to the intersection of these concerns). Yes, the pure "environmentals" ignore the welfare of INDIVIDUAL animals and the pure "animal rights" ignore consideration of welfare of species and the ecosystem as a whole and I am NOT intending this to take sides, just point it out. Those with whom we disagree in this way are NOT "the main enemy".
To act as if they were is "the disease of the left" -- treating another faction with whom we have some ideological difference as if they were the main enemy. Instead of focusing on the main battle and letting this other aspect wait till later as much as we can. Yes of course, SOMETIMES there really is an unavoidable fight between us on some particular issue that is actively being worked on (a campaign). For example, the environmentalists might want an invasive species removed and the animal rights folks can't consider individuals of this species any less entitled to thrive than those of the native species. But most of the time we can stay out of each other's way.
Understand what I am saying? To single out Turner here (because animals sold for eating) is to ignore that this is a generally done thing. The "problem" from the point of view of the "animal rights" folks who are both is BAD ENVIRONMENTALISM. In other words, treating as a particular "enemy" not all the non-environmentals and all the non animal rights but an environmental who does not share the animal rights values.
PS -- this problem also exists between the "environmentals" and the "left"
* "Beads" or periodic wide spots on a wildlife corridor eneable it to function ALMOST as well as if the entire corridor. Yes the entire corridor wide would be better but that takes a lot more resources. Long corridors narrow all the way are not very effective.
MDN