After a $100 million donation to MIT, which prompts some serious ass kissing, David Koch’s boo-boo is all better:
“I read stuff about me and I say, ‘God, I’m a terrible guy,’ ” he said. “And then I come here and everybody treats me like I’m a wonderful fellow, and I say, ‘Well, maybe I’m not so bad after all.’ ”
And don’t tell me that a college won’t whore itself out for money:
His gift here means that one of the biggest donors to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, home to some of the top climate scientists in the nation, is an owner of a company that Greenpeace called “a kingpin of climate change denial.”
Koch Industries — which owns oil refineries, pipelines and consumer brands like Dixie cups and Lycra — responded that “it is Greenpeace that is the denier here — denier of any rational and honest dialogue on the underlying scientific debate regarding climate change.”
The Raven
I think MIT is laughing all the way to the bank.
Comrade Javamanphil
It would have been $200 million if they’d swallowed.
Donut
Ah, there’s yer Librul New York Times, coming through with what amounts to a puff piece that rehabs the ol’ image just a little bit. Michael Cooper and editors give it just enough, some on the Left say he’s a bad guy but how could a guy who donates $100M to cancer research be all that bad? to make it “balanced” piece of “reporting.”
Well-fuckin-done, Koch Industries media relations department!
JMS
All this has gotten me to thinking about what Koch Industries produces, anyway, and how complicit I am in enabling their evil, so I checked out their website. They seem to produce a lot of toilet paper (none brands that I use). Dixie cups I have used occasionally–doesn’t seem to be much in the way of alternative brands in bathroom size cups. I’m sure I have a certain amount of Lycra (but was it from before 2004?) in my wardrobe. The rest of it seems to be so far down the chain (lumber? minerals? chemicals?) that I imagine I’m supporting them somehow and not knowing it. Wonderful.
Clark
Sure they deny climate change, but what they are really interested in is gay marriage.
Donut
I mean, where oh where would Michael Cooper get all those details about Mr. Koch’s cancer? I’m sure David coughed all that up while supplying all those quotes in his hours-long interview with Michael Cooper.
bkny
koch’s personal wealth is est to be $12 billion. $200 million is a fraction of what it’s gonna cost mit to run that institute. amazing how that fucking pig can note the diminished funds going to nih — when it’s his bankroll that funds that idiotology that rejects scientitifc research.
Bernie Latham
Hardly any surprise that we would see a PR initiative with the goal of putting a friendly face on these two given the number of big, expensive PR firms in their employ.
And not terribly surprising that Cooper would allow himself to used in such a manner.
katjam
My letter to the Editors of the NYT:
David Koch’s gift to MIT is indeed generous, but his donation does not negate the damage he is attempting to do to our democracy, In Michael Cooper’s article Koch admits that government research funds for cancer may soon dry up perversely because of the political efforts of his Koch-backed Tea Party groups to clamor for government austerity. As a wealthy cancer survivor he can insure research continues in his personal area of interest. If all other areas of research dependent on government funding dry up, Koch’s attitude like Speaker Boehner’s is “so be it.”
There is a delicious irony to this gift. The Koch brothers’ extensive oil, gas and paper businesses pollute our environment every day with potential carcinogens. Their political efforts are, however, directed towards eliminating the EPA and any other government regulation that might actually reduce the occurrence of these deadly substances.
Steeplejack
I think you want “ass kissing” instead of “ass kidding” in your first line. Unless there is some non-Internet tradition of which I am not aware.
grumpy realist
Heh. As an MIT alum, I can predict we will happily take Koch’s money, use the cash for fantastic cancer research, then turn around and bite him in the ass.
$200 Million is trivial by comparison to the value of the companies MIT has founded, and don’t think that MIT doesn’t know it, either. Heck, it’s trivial by comparison to the value of the IP MIT’s got in its present portfolio.
To misquote a celebrated southerner (Huey Long?): “Son, if you can’t take their money, wine, and whores, then turn around and vote against them the next morning, you have no business being in politics.”
Cat Lady
Another reason why Ian Murphy at the Buffalo Beast should be given some kind of Awesomesauce Award of the Year is Koch’s comment that now if he really does want to call a politician they probably won’t take his call. Koch’s going to have to deliver the moneybags in person.
AhabTRuler
What’s Mr. Levenson’s take on this?
@grumpy realist:
I don’t know that it is that simple. It is a bit “unrealistic” to say that the donation will accrue no benefits.
dan
I wanted to do a little “ass kidding” this morning, but my wife said no.
JPL
Oh goodie. Koch could do more if he used the money to clean up his own companies. I’m glad that he can afford all the experimental drugs to treat his cancer.
nitpicker
Poor guy has to buy friends…what a sad little rich kid.
christian mistermix
@dan: Ha! Fixed it.
El Cid
Rockefeller Foundation. The famed Carnegie 22.
Oh, heck, for that matter, just let the Carnegie Foundation tell you why robber barons weren’t robber barons and dedicated their lives to building America’s economy and funding the progress of all.
Businessweek at least found someone with sanity to review a biography of Carnegie.
The largest non-profit and charitable foundations are actually among the key institutions by which the topmost classes network and interact with the public and with governance.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
people who say there is no chance that elvis is still alive somewhere, with jfk, and marilyn monroe, einstein and tupac,they are the deniers. they deny an honest and rational debate on the possibilty that aliens are already in control of our galaxy and they are disappearing iconic celebrities and taking them to a special resort somewhere, not able to be seen on google world.
cathyx
So sad, paying someone to like you.
Omnes Omnibus
@Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal: How do you know that google isn’t involved? My b-i-l works there and he has told me things. I can’t tell you though. They are secret.
Poopyman
@Comrade Javamanphil: WIN!
Meg
They just took a page out of the tobacco industry playbook, funding heavily on bio-science in order to find friendly voices and trying to play the role of genuine debater. It worked very well before many times.
cathyx
BREAKING NEWS! MIT has new evidence to question the veracity of global warming.
Joe Bauers
No, Mr. Cock. Believe you me, you’re still a horrible guy.
ppcli
MIT has been in this game for a long time and they know what they’re doing. They know that this will provoke cancer to donate even more money to the fight against David Koch.
Omnes Omnibus
@ppcli: Fundraising is a complicated process.
jcgrim
Just another typical example of US oligarchs buying patronage to sell their versions of reality to the dismal mass media vortex.
Ellie
Well, guess what? “Get lost” is exactly what congresscritters would say if any of us called and tried to get them on the phone. What a pathetic, whiny asshole.
Sadly, the truth is that they’ll still take his calls.
Origuy
@grumpy realist:
That was a quote from Molly IvIns;
ppcli
@Ellie: Good eye. These guys are so embedded in their own world that they have no idea how much they reveal about themselves with every utterance.
Prometheus Shrugged
@cathyx: Actually, MIT IS home to Dick Lindzen, who is virtually the only credible atmospheric scientist that doubts the projections of global warming. Lindzen’s ideas have been effectively shot down over the past 10 years or so, and he has stubbornly hung on to them–maybe relishing the perceived role as a “maverick”. But at least the ideas were somewhat plausible to begin with (as opposed to those simply trying to obscure the issue.)
Plus, there are alot of MIT-trained engineers out there that are deniers as well–probably an ego thing in their case.
So your joke isn’t actually a joke.
lester freamon
That would suck if we like, you know, cured cancer and no one had to suffer anymore, but it came from money from a guy we don’t like so we all went Galt and let our cancerz go untreated and died.
Amy
I am following the Wisconsin situation via Twitter (#wiunion) and some guy, who says he’s a Fox News contributor keeps posting things about how the Kochs give a lot of money to charity and how much do libs give. Evidently in our new Gilded Age, we’re supposed to be happy with another union-busting rich guy who funds some good causes.
Amy
I am following the Wisconsin situation via Twitter (#wiunion) and some guy, who says he’s a Fox News contributor keeps posting things about how the Kochs give a lot of money to charity and how much do libs give. Evidently in our new Gilded Age, we’re supposed to be happy with another union-busting rich guy who funds some good causes with a little piece of their big bucks.
liberal
@bkny:
This is why it’s key to remember that assets, not income, comprise wealth, and why people who are against oligarchy should consider wealth taxes (particularly on rent-producing assets).
Pongo
So is MIT now the ‘Massachusetts Institute of Texas’ where the Koch brother’s hail from?
The NYT article is another demonstration of why donor-prioritized philanthropy is a bad idea. While he points to NIH cuts (that he was instrumental in securing) as a reason why billionaires like him need to step in and provide research funding, he totally ignores that many, many, many diseases do not have access to self-serving billionaires to help with research funding. I work in the rare diseases community–30,000,000 Americans with one of more than 6,000 different disorders, often genetic, incurable and devastating (the media insists on only presenting the bizarre and freaky when it comes to rare diseases–even the ‘liberal’ media. Huffpo had an egregious ‘freak show’ article up in honor of Rare Disease Day last week). Rare diseases get the crumbs left over after the NIH institutes have funded all the major disorders. Not only is this short-sighted, since many of these disorders are natural genetic laboratories for understanding common diseases, it is also fundamentally ‘unequal.’ Industry can’t take on rare diseases because there is no way for them to recoup developments costs with such small population. Now Koch, et al, through their support of idiotic Tea Party candidates, want to take away even the crumbs, while laying claim to a philanthropic interest in medical research. Take about having your cancer and curing it, too.
If, as libertarian free-marketeer’s contend, the govt’s only proper role is where the market can’t solve problems then medical research should be a major focus of the govt’s budget (not 6% or whatever dismal number it currently is). There is something incredibly perverse in allowing personally motivated billionaires to decide what constitutes a public health issue.
I met with Senator Franken (D-MN) and some other elected reps regarding the NIH budget cuts last week. The general consensus is that it is ‘amateur hour’ in the House and that a shocking number of Tea Party freshman reps have zero idea how the federal budget even works, much less how to manage it. If they decide to be as stupidly intransigent as, say, some Tea Party governor from certain coldish midwestern state, it could be an ugly battle, but the sense was that there is bipartisan support in the Senate to spare NIH in the budget cuts, or at least not hit them as hard as the House wants to.
liberal
@grumpy realist:
I’m an MIT alum, too (PhD). It’s an amazing institution, but let’s not forget how deeply entwined it is with the military-industrial complex.
gwangung
Salem hypothesis,
Paul Allen. Bill Gates.
Both of them make the Kochs look like pikers.
fraught
Lie # one:
No, he doesn’t.
liberal
@Pongo:
But there are reasonable utilitarian arguments against focusing too much on rare diseases, with the important caveat you mention that rare disease research, to the extent it’s “pure,” can shed light on human disease and biology more generally in a fruitful way.
At the level of less applied, more pure research, industry can’t recoup the cost, rare disease or common disease, because there’s not really a good way of preventing other people from profiting from the research, unless you want a draconian intellectual property regime which would kill off research anyway. It’s why they focus so much on me-too drugs and drugs that sell well but are of little efficacy (e.g., Claritin, IIRC).
Most of the research I see at NIH is really more pure than applied. Which IMHO is a good thing. It’s the kind that the private sector isn’t going to fund, period, unless we bring back state-recognized monopolies like Bell Labs (which merely brought us the transistor, IIRC).
Hillary Rettig
don’t forget this: “Mr. Koch said that he became passionate about cancer research after he learned in 1992 that he had prostate cancer.”
conservative ethics: it’s only a problem if it affects me.
SP
“I was thinking to myself, ‘My God, if I called up a senator or a congressman to discuss something with them, and they heard ‘David Koch is on the line,’ they’d immediately say, ‘That’s that fraud again — tell him to get lost!’”
You mean you might be treated like an ordinary person and not be able to speak directly to a congressman whenever you want? Boo fucking hoo.
I’m glad they mention the formaldehyde thing, although I wish they’d find some estimates- how many more people will get cancer if formaldehyde is unregulated vs. how many people could possibly expect to be cured by the research he’s funding? He could prevent far far far more cancer by having his companies pollute less, even if it costs them $100M in profits, than his $100M donation will ever cure. If I were uncharitable I’d describe it as a future where Koch doesn’t care if everyone gets cancer, as long as those who can afford it can buy the cures he’ll fund.
Cacti
If you can’t make any friends, might as well buy a few.
SP
One consolation is that the big sign directly across the street from Koch’s fancy new building reminds him that he’s not all that:
From Wikipedia Eli Broad:
The Broads have given $600M to their biomedical institute despite being worth half as much as just one Koch.
trollhattan
@AhabTRuler:
Somewhere in the agreement is this language: “And finally, Levenson must hereafter leave McMegan aloooooooooone!”
Zuzu's Petals
Don’t forget that scummy, wing-nut lovin’, Swift Boat Liar-fundin’ blowhard T. Boone Pickens, who now appears on the likes of the Daily Show to discuss his alternative-fuel money-makin’ ideas with Jon Stewart.
Adolf Jones
$100 million is chump change for individuals who take in more money in a year than most countries of the world. Remember kids, Jesus told the rich man to GIVE it ALL to the poor.
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@lester freamon: Somehow I don’t think that getting Koch-backed Tea Party groups to successfully cut over $500 million in funding from the NCI (which has given billions for cutting-edge cancer research to many, many universities)and then turning around and donating $100 million to MIT is the way we’ll find a cancer cure. You may know something I don’t though.
Elizabelle
@katjam:
Terrific letter.
Another point: Koch donates to PBS. I cringe whenever I hear an announcement of support by “The David Koch Foundation” (for NOVA) because PBS’s Newshour and Frontline are a last bastion of serious, in depth reportage for grown-ups.
The Tea Party patriot-morons are working to defund PBS as we speak.
The facts, it seems, often have a liberal bias.
zed
http://www.theonion.com/articles/exxonmobil-ceo-really-hurt-that-college-student-is,19333/
David Koch
Last laugh is on you. I only spent a faction to buy and control FDL.
Resident Firebagger
@Hillary Rettig: No matter how much Koch donates to cancer research, the douchebag causes more with his business…
PurpleGirl
@gwangung: Bill Gates gives a lot to world-wide health issues. He gives a lot to education reform via SCHOOL SYSTEMS or DISTRICTS which will start programs he approves of, not so much to individual efforts in any given city. He gave to local libraries for years. He isn’t really the best example of charitable giving, especially his education grants.
Church Lady
Does this mean that Tom can’t write anything negative about the Koch brothers or any of the causes they support? Inquiring minds want to know.
Tom Levenson
@Church Lady: No.
SATSQ.
Lengthier (surprise!) reply to come.
Jim, Once
@David Koch: Just curious… which faction?
DougW
@PurpleGirl:
Bill Gates has done more than any other donor to help third world health issues. I don’t understand why you don’t think that he’s the incredible savior of lives that he is… Is it because the majority of his money is going to the third world? They need it a hell of a lot more than we do…