Search
and Ye Shall Find
Starting this week, you can
search Slate, including "The Compost" (our archive), for specific words or phrases. Use
this feature to find articles by a particular author or a reference to a
particular subject. Slate Search is located on the Compost page, but search
results will include current articles (within a day of their posting) as well
as older ones. (If Slate Search isn't available when you go to check, it will
be shortly.) The rules are pretty simple:
A search for Bill
Gates (or Bill, Gates or Bill and Gates ) will find articles
containing both the word bill
and the word
gates .
A search for "Bill
Gates" (in quotes) will find articles containing the exact phrase bill
gates .
The search is not
case-sensitive (i.e., capitalization doesn't matter).
A few more
pointers:
It is possible to search for
words other than Bill Gates , but that is not recommended, and Slate
cannot be held responsible for the result.
A search for "Bill
Gates" will find only favorable references. To find unfavorable references,
search somewhere else.
You Can
Make the Slate 60
People make two justified
complaints about our Slate 60 ranking of America's largest contributors to charity.
Indeed, we make these complaints ourselves. First, the list is not a very
accurate measure of sacrifice for good causes, since it doesn't factor in a
person's wealth or income. In fact, few if any members of the Slate 60 have had
to suffer any diminution of their lifestyle as a consequence of having given
away money. Second, the Slate 60 list does not attempt to weigh the merits of
different charities. Much of the money given away by the Slate 60 goes to
finance new buildings at already wealthy universities.
We think these defects aren't
fatal. The Slate 60 list still serves to encourage and acknowledge
extraordinary generosity by people who, after all, don't have to give
the money away, however painless that might be. And ranking by size of gift
provides a useful objective measure. But we'd also like to acknowledge
extraordinary generosity by people for whom it hurts, and to encourage more
imaginative giving.
Therefore (at the suggestion
of occasional Slate contributor and Atlantic Monthly national
correspondent Nicholas Lemann), we invite nominations for a Supplemental 60
(better name forthcoming, let's hope). E-mail your suggestions to Slate's
Washington editor, Jodie T. Allen, at [email protected]. She says she'll be looking for
contributions that
are innovative--or at least
interesting--though not wacky; and/or
wouldn't normally result in
either the donor's name being inscribed in granite or his or her being honored
at a glitzy dinner or other ceremony; and/or
represent a significant
sacrifice or effort by the donor; and (no or)
are likely to result in some
tangible good--recognizing that everyone won't agree with our (or the donor's)
definition thereof.
The first challenge to
potential nominees, obviously, is to parse the Boolean logic of these
standards. (Would that Slate's new search engine were so sophisticated.) But
Jodie points to the story this week of the woman who
pledged--anonymously--$2,000 to each family in Grand Forks, N.D., that was
victimized by the Red River flood as an example of what we're looking for. This
woman's generosity could cost her $10 million. And it may not even be tax
deductible.
--Michael Kinsley
