Bryan Preston at Hot Air blathers on about 9/11 conspiracy theories promoted by the "hardcore left." This is to be expected, since Preston and his colleagues over at Hot Air such as Michelle Malkin like to dig up fringe characters and paint them as official spokespersons for the Democratic Party. This one statement from Preston, however, did catch my eye:

The anti-war left that poses as the voice of the little guy can’t seem to raise campaign funds without billionaires like Soros and assorted leftwing foundations shovelling in the cash.

I'm sure the IRS, in its current configuration, would appreciate a list of all those private, left-wing foundations that are doling out the campaign cash.

Perhaps give this a read before declaring sainthood:

That the myth of Buffett is so pervasive is no accident. The "Oracle of Omaha" actually gives few interviews outside of his famous annual meeting in Nebraska each year. Those whom he does talk to, such as Fortune's Carol Loomis, are either on his payroll or don't dare criticize St. Warren lest they lose access.

 

But people as successful as Buffett don't accumulate $44 billion in wealth through charitable dealing. Long after the public turned on smoking and health, Buffett infamously explained his investment in the tobacco business: "It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty."

A few things got lost in the avalanche of coverage about the world's second richest man giving most of his fortune to the world's richest man. Although hailed as unprecedented, brilliant, innovative, etc. etc., the deal has all the markings of a handshake on the 5th green after successful completion of a particularly troublesome up and down.

Let me state unequivocally before I leave the impression of the grinch who ate the charitable impulse that I think what Buffett has done is a good thing; better than, say, building a $37-billion house in Omaha. It's just a shame Buffett made the announcement as if he was striking up a distribution deal for widgets. We learned from the announcement that Buffett cares about three things: 1] Keeping his children's paws off the vast majority of his dough; 2] Getting the vast majority of his dough out the door more quickly than any philanthropist in history; 3] His friendship with Bill Gates.

We didn't learn if any of the areas in which the Gates Foundation funds are of any interest to Buffett. "I trust Bill Gates not to blow it" makes for an odd philanthropic strategy.

We're back. We've retooled a bit, and done some thinking about what we want this blog to be. After having a pretty loose focus [like a three-year-old in a sandbox with 30 toys], we've decided we really want to focus on the public face of institutional philanthropy and private foundations. What do they do well and what can they do better, particularly when it comes to advocating for the issues they care about? Of course, we'll retain the right to occasionally divert to other related topics. Thanks to those of you who payed attention to Philanthropybeat ver.1. We hope the next iteration will be a meaningful reentry into the ongoing dialogue about philanthropy occuring in blogworld.