tv Charlie Rose PBS June 14, 2011 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
>> rose: welcome to our program. as the alone administration considers troop withdrawal from afghanistan, we talk to martha raddatz of abc news and karen de young of twopt. "the washington post." >> what they have now, they have those 0,000 extra troops, the surge troops, and they can they take out 5,000 by the end of july? 10,000 by the end of july? and how rapidly do you do that over a period of 12 months, 18 months, and i think that's what president obama wants to come out and say, look, we can do this a little faster here if we have more through the end of the year as secretary gates wants and as admiral mullin want and then you can start gradually taking them out. >> rose: weontie this evening with the story about the great news of stan musl, with bob costas of nbc sports and tim mccarver of fox sports a
george vecsey of "the new york times." >> even thoughtan the man is a great nickname and the stance was distinctive there's just not one momen ther aren't the controversies or the specific achievements, all time home run king, 56 game hitting streak -- he just kind of slipped through the cracks. >> and we conclude this evening with a look at how to make flanthropy work. joel fleishman and thomas j. tierney have written a book called "give smart." >> the key is looking at what you're trying to achieve, what your values are, can you see what it is at the end of the road that is being done with the money in the you're getting. if you don't ask yourself those questions, you know, you lose many opportunities to be sure about what you're going to get done. >> troop withdrawal from afghanistan, the great stan musial and how to "give smart," when we continue.
from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we begin this evening with afghanistan. president obama will soon announce his decision on araw down of american troops in that country. in december of 2009 he authorized a surge of 0,000 troops. at that time, he had pledged to start withdrawing the first surge troops before the end this july. the decision comes amid growing congressional questions about the cost and length of the war. the united states has 100,000 troops in afghanistan. the military operation cost more than a huned billion dollars year and there will major personnel changes soon. robert gates retired at june. petreus is in lin for the job at the c.i.a. and pay tray yas is said to dere 0 reduction.
let me start with you, karen. what is the debate going on about afghanistan within the administration. >> well, i think they're certainly focused on july but the other question is whether they should set a glide path for how many troops to withdraw by the end of the year. should they set a goal of getting out all 30,000 sub troops or should they make it take longer than that. the problem is a lot of people outside and some people inside the whithouse argue that if we're going to claim progress, that there's been progress in afghanistan, that really the withdrawals ought to reflect that. congress wants to stop spending so much money and wants to bring more people home much more quickly. the military is opposed to that because they say look we have made a lot of progress and gains and we need to consolidate them now, don't throw it all away by bringing too many home too soon.
>> martha you wereheren afghanistan and toured several areas. what progress has been made and how do those people on the ground assess what ty have done and what remains to be done. >> well, i think there's a lot of progress in the south. there'a lot of progress in those areas where they have had a lot of the surge troops. i spent a lot of time on the border in the etern part of the country. on the border you still have the hakani network coming in. the outgoing general there of the 101starian general major general john campbell said, look, we have killed or captured about 4,000 taliban. i said so why isn't it over if you have done that much? he said they keep regenerated and keep coming over but they show progress there. i think, charlie, what they're really talking about there, and really every single senior officer that i talked to over there said they did not want to draw down too quickly. there was a lot of work to be done. but i think what the debate
really is now, is whether they should continue with the counterinsurgency strategy. that strategy takes a lot of timea lot of money, and a lot of people. so i think that is the echo over there that i heard, that the troops on the ground that the general is on the ground want to continue with this strategy because they think is working. it's the strategy that worked in iraq. but i think in washington, they're saying that that is too expensive. we have to take another look. there a sense go back to 2009 and the debate that you had then, the counterterrorism approach, osama bin laden is dead now, precisely that approach so president obama can have that argument. >> joe biden and others argued that in the 2009 debate. who is arguing that now? >> i think that vice president biden is still arguing it. i think tom donnel lynn head of
the u.n. security council argues that. i don't think it's necessarily talking about a change in strategy saying that we're going to do things a lot difference than we used to be doing. we just need to do a lot less of it. with a lot fewer people, that the civilians are supposed to take over. but more importantly, the afghans are supposed to take over. they say look, now or never, we have to put them to the test. why not get more afghans involved in this. why not push them? we know we have been coddling them. it doesn't have to be perfect. is afghan good enough -- it just has to be better than the taliban, which is pretty tough to be over there. and the training over there is tough. they have made some gains in the training of the afghan troops i have seen. it's over the past couple of years they have literacy crses now and driving courses now so they're more successful with that. one thing i think people forget,
too, people talk about all of the troops are out in 201 that's not true. the combat portion of this, much as they called it in iraq, the combat portion ends at the end of 2014 but it's really when the afghans are supposed to take the lead, so we are supposed to have troops there past 2014. >> what about the nato troops, will they be leaving in 2014 as well? >> that owe has an agreement that they made at their summit in liz bon, last november, that all of them will have their combat troops out by the end of 2014. different countries -- it's an individual decision by each cotry how quickly they draw down. some will be completely out. the canadians say they will be out. the britts say they're staying until after 2014 but you don't know how many. a lot of countries simply want to get out. they're under a lot of pressure. they're under econocressure. they're under popular pressure, just as in here there's not a lot of support for this war
anymore. so the americans, as you heard bob gates say last week, or this week, that, you know, nato has to pull its share. he was talking about libya and to some extent about afghanistan. but i think that they feel like they don't want -- one of the reasons they don't want to pull a lot of troops out quily is that they think that will start a flood from the europeans and the other countries at that time are involved in there and say well if you're leaving we're definitely leang right now. >> has the success on the ground led the taliban to be more interested in negotiating? and if there is negotiation, who is it between? >> i think that's one of those things i'm going to have to see to believe. there's a lot of talk about negotiating with the taliban but there's a lot of talk about negotiating with the taliban last year as well and they had some fake coming forward who didn't really represent the taliban, so there have been some
mistakes along those lines. there's talk among u.s. officials that the taliban should be more interested cause of the scess on the ground and maybe they are and maybe the death of osama bin laden made a difference. but i haven't really seen any concrete thingsbout that yet. there's reconciliation in smaller parts of the country. that's what the generals are doing with people coming back, turn in your weapons types of things but a larger reconciliation, got to see that before i believe it. >> well, i thi there is -- there isome movement. as martha said these talks last year, there was real concern that the people they were talking to, in addition to some of them being fake taliban, were really not -- not high enough up. did not have contacts with omar, were not decision makers within the taliban. now they at least they are talking to people that they have had talks in gerny, talks no qatar, talking to people that they believe at least have the ear of mullah omar, the head of
the taliban. >> who is in pakistan. >> exactly. i think the taliban have made some demands. their number one demand is the withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately. the americans are looking at that as a negotiating position. they have demanded they break all ties with al qaeda which i don't think is that big of a problem for them right now. they have to submit themselves to the afghanistan democratic structure,o the afghan constitution. and the questions they're asking, i think in these preliminary talkare, what is our role in the new government? what powers do we get? what ministries do we get? what parts of the country do we get to control? obviously they still want to control the south which is the areaf activityf this part of the afghanistan taliban. you still have the hakoni network which is in the eastern part of afghanistan that has not been a party to the talks and is very much tie to the pakistanis
and the pakistanis want their own rules in the parks and want to be ab to help determine to a large extent what kind of government there's going to be in afghanistan. i think we're still a very, very long way from having any kind of commitment to putown their arms and auall engage in serious conversations. but themericans he set a goal for the end of this year and said by the end of these year we really want to have these talks under way. you hear them sayg it over and over again and secretary gates said it last week, there's no military solution to this war, there's got to be a political solution. >> but it's why they want to keep a pressure on and why people like gates and the military want to keep this president bush on during this period because the taliban, if they feel the pressure is loosening, they can go back t what they're doing. >> if i can go back, charlie, some of the things that i saw, on the ground, they're still
engaged in the batels and i'm not sure what they're for. they're at these very small combat posts. probably wouldn't be attack fire department they were not there. so they're still in effect kind of bullet sponges in those areas. i don't know what they're doing in those very, very remote outposts. at's halls been a question. if you look back atoáw)ñ5rrand e closed and they moved some of those around. but those a the thing in thened where you say what were theydoing to the extend -- >> this is what they're talking about. a lot of membersof congress, some of them want to stop spending money. some of them are looking to the elections to try to lower the pro nile afghanistan. but others say, look, what are we doing there? are we trying to otect every valley? there are places where there's no population except for the
liban and the reason the taliban is there is because american troops are there. so there are questions raised inside the white house as well as in congress and other places outsid the governme saying, what are we doing in those places. again it's how fast you can do it. i think that's one of those difficult things, now they have the extra 30,000 troops and can they take out 5,000 by the end of july? can they take out 10,000 by the end of july and how rapidly do a do that over a period of 12 months, 18 months and i tnk th'swhat president alone wawrchts to come out and say look we can do this a little faster here or if we have more through the end of the year as secretary gates wants and admiral mullin wants then you can start gradually taking them out after that. then you have to think about it. there are 70,000 troops there. i think there's certainly an argument in the white house and
elsewhere, is that too many? could you possibly go down to 25,000 and do the original biden plan and just target terrorist networks? al qaeda is not a huge problem in afghanistan anymore. they're fighting the taliban. they're fighting the hokani network but they estimated about -- >> you don't hear so much the ghanistan pakistan, you don't hear af-pak li you did. >> so this review will last a week or so or what? >> general petreus came into town let's friday. i'm not sure when he will be presenting his plan or even if he presentto the president. he may just talk to secretary gates about this ask secretary gates goes to the president. i think what you might see is different options. you might see as they did before, the high risk option, the medium risk option and the
low-risk option. and they say obviously if we pull out 30,000 troops by the end of july they would consider that high risk, they wou consider that a dangerous move and perhaps at the low end it's zero, to 5,000 and it would end up somewhere unless mdle. >> these are discussions going on right now and we're likely to see announcements sooner rather than later. the military you can't just y ok, we're pulling out x thousand troops and do it. >> and they d't really pull them out, either. they don't replace the brigades or people, so it's not as if they are going to say you guys can go home tomorrow. >> but remember the president's thomas, troops will be coming home by the end of july so they need to start figuring -- >> where do we think the president is leaning certainly from what i have heard and what you have heard as well, it's probably but i do think he has
an open mind at this point. he is obviously going to take the advice of his military advisors. but the president at this point is not the same president he was at the end of 2009 where i do ink he felt too much pressure from the military, he felt boxed into a corner by what he was hearing from his military advisors. he didn't have a lot of national security experience at this point. he does now. and he just gave that incredible order to go after osama bin laden while some of the more senior people his cabinet didn't think that was a wise thing to do. so he made, what everyone agreesis a really strong decision there and a really gutsy decision tore the president to make. so he goes in to this debate with probay a lot better nation security. >> let's not forget, too, that he goes into it 1 1/2 years before the next election and th is weighing very heavily on everyone's mind.
the polls show that this war is increasingly unpopular. people want to get out. i think there is a sense -- nobody thinks that the strategy decision was wrong, but i think there is a sense to some extent got rolled bit the military. >> that's why now he could make a decision where he wanted more than the military out of there, exactly that if he is thinking about nextear and the election and all of that and he has this national security experience, chi make a decision based on what he thinks is best. >> thank you both. that was terrific. >> stan musial is one of baseball's unsung heros. he played 22 years with the cardinals and he had three mvp's. >> there it goes. a home run over the right field screen. it's the fourth all-star homer. >> his 1948season is considered
one of the best the game has ever seen. he retired in 1963. his legacy has steadily grown st. louis but faded elsewhere, overshadowed by joe dimaggio and ted williams. he he is now receiving the respect he deserves. he w awarded the presidential medal of fedom at the white house. >> he was the first player to make a hundred thousand dollars! even more shocking, he asked for a pay cut when he didn't perform up to his own expectations. you can imagine that happening today. stan remains to this day an icon, untarnished and a beloved pillar of the community, a gentleman you would want your kids to emulate. >> joining me now three people who love baseball, bob costas of nbc sports, tim mccarver of fox sports. he was a teammate of stan's in
the 1960's, and george vecsey of the new york sometimes, author of "stan musial, an american life." i will begin with you and go around. tell me who stanusia was. >> he was a superstar that not only put up fabulous nbers but from a personal level, his stardom never intimidated. in other words, you were intimidated when you were around joe dimaggio. you were intimidated when you were around willie maze. but with stan, he was so comfortable within himself that he made everybody around him feel comfoable, and that is a very unusual straight for superlar. >> george he was he.he was an et war america.
he was up from poverty, very america, ethnic strains. got a reasonable execute in a small town by being good at something and passing it on to other people. >> from your hometown. >> adopted hometown. >> he was many things, and admiral and we will get to them ase discuss it. but right off the top, he is one of the most under rated great players in the game's history. i her 20 years ago zitting with frank robinson and saying i thought frank ross inwas was the most under rated players. and now i have -- espn50 greatest athletes of the century, maids, dimaggio on the
list. stan musial not on the list. in 1999 when they had the big celebration during the world series, a special i can had to add land to t list because the fan te left him off the top 25. stan musial not among the top 25 players? >> what is it? >> i think it's this is george bay e. lays it out in his book. you think of his contraries. joejoe dimaggio was great and ty had achievements you handle your hat on, 2 sgs about him, plus he married marilyn monroe. ted williams, last n to hit 400, hit a home run last time at bat. and musial doesn't have any specific record that you can hang your hat on and his life
story doesn't have all ofhose ups and downs. he was not contest use like williams or dark and broodg like dimaggio. even those who overlapped him,arian is treuch the home run kid. mantle, star crossed, great physical ability, want all he could have bon and that's a story that jean laid out but flee. i think george had a tump task becae there are not as many rough edges. >> that's a good questio i don't know how he would have done in new york. if he had come to new york -- dimaggio got run in the service in 1942. the yankee ownership said why aren't you in the service? he got run into the service in boston. he was taking care of his mother. nobody ever went after -- for
the same thing, registering with the draft board and going when his number came up but in st. louis he was an icon and nobody questioned that. in new york, i can just imagine there would be a colonel or somebody that w could name in new york that would have been after him. >> and plating abbott's field, he might have hit .400 for a lifetime. >> abbott's field is where he was named the man. and if there was anybody who ever was worthy of the name "the man" it was stan. >> and given to him by the fans of the brj lynnodgers. why was it made for him? >> it was a shortight field there. i'm trying to recall theodging picture staff, he was right-handed. >> he once posted and he said i
know how to get stan musial out? give him a triple and go to third base. >> rose: he was every bit the equal of de imagineiose and williams even though he did not get the ?eadges. >> i think he was, yes. had he played in new york, i mean, he would have been probably -- well, i think he would have been better than dimaggio. if he would have played at yankee stadium. because dimaggio was handicapping at yankee stadium. but musial with the short porch down the right-field line, 290 feet, so you put him in yankee stadium. was he a better hitter than williams? i dot think so. >> nobody not on steroids or named babe routed was abetter hitt and dimaggio was the better outfielder among them.
but somewhere outside of st. louis he is not in the discussion and he should be. >> we are seeing him in there tonight. >> let me just say, as a complete player, not a great arm. played left field. >>tarted his time as a player at lefield. >> he made an immediate mar he was the most valuable player in 1942, four years after he signed. but he could run. a lot of people don't realize how fast he was. and he never struck out. 646 strikeouts in 22 years is about 30 a year. >> let's talk about his stance, shall we? take a look at the picture on his screen. number one. look at this stance. what can we say about this? >> coiled. >> it was like a kid peeking around the corner waiting for a
cop to come. >> you had the closest look because y caught batting practice and you were that close to stan the man and you watched him go into that stance? what did you think about tha >> when i was 18 years old, my first spring training, stan's first day, first time in the x, and in those ds, y didn't work out during the winter. you got in shape in spring training. and whoever was pitching, batting practice, missed the outside corner by a nano inch. and stan would say -- i remember him clearlyaying, on three straight pitches. "no, you have to give him that. it's just off the plate ." here is a y who was 40 years old, who had not seen a ball thrown, even though he did have a personal trainener his later life, had not seen a pitch all winter and the first three pitches he sees in spring training he knows is a nano inch
outside. >> that sounds like william. >> stan had great eyes. >> i thinky told me this story, where he advised you that you could try to hit the upper fart of the ball or bottom part of the ball and you just think i'm trying to hit the ball period. >> it's the top half when it it's and centerwhen it's waist high. i said, stan, sorry, i don't understand that. >> rose: you just want to hit it. he knew what to hit at. >> oh, yeah. oh, yeah. he may have been the greatest -- williams was pure hitter. dimaggio was a highball hitter. stan musial may have been the best lowball tter. nobody threw the lowball or fastball that was down in the strike zone by an musial. >> is this the book everybody wants to talk to you. you say i'm writing a book a
stan mial and you call and somebody says i wonder when you were going to call me because people need a book. >> there was that. there were a lot of older ball players that raved about him. then there was also oral history with matter marion and harry walker and some of the old people before the time talking about him. and they all had things to say about him. he was not available to me as an older man. he recently passed but his words jump out at this oral history. and he dimaggio, he was -- i seep dimaggio every spring and now yououldn't say enough about him. >> obviously people that grow up in new york, a certain age, they show dimaggio and mantle play and they might have encountered em. say that about any great ayer that sent a certain amount of time in a certain city but a hugeortion of the population
of st. louis has had some personal contact with stan musial. they will run into him at a restaurant or a kids ballgame because he was doting father and a doting grandfather. or they met for their first day at the musial statue and that statue was not a good likeness ofim. they suequely corrected it with a smaller one that looked more like him. but at this point more than a million said, where do you want to meet, meet you at the stadium. and before the game there are dozens of people waiting foyer their date. >> a young lady in a cubs outfit, i was there and a young lady in a cubs outfit said i'm supposed to meet my boyfriend by the musial statue. there are two of them. how many ball players have two statues at the same ballpark. >> and was it or not ironic that
stan got his 3,000 hit -- >> in those days the league was smaller. it was manageable. it was the last train ride the cardinals ever took from committee back to st. louis. they jump on the train and party. >> they sort of whistle stopped, right? they stopped at each station so the fans could get a glimpse of stan and they -- >> abe lincoln going through campaigning a hundred years earlier. >> which was he left out of the espn and all century teams. >> i think it's what i said earlier, just not a specific thing to hang your hat . even though stan the man is a great nickname. there's just not one moment -- there aren't the controversies. there aren't the specific achiements, all-time home rung king, 56-game hitting streak -- he just slipped through the
cracks. >> plus he played his last 18 years without a trip to the world series. >> and stan is in failing health now. when the time comes, you find yourself in st. louis, it will be like a head of state has gone. it will be the entire st. louis post dispatch. it will be whawl to wall on kmox and every television station. and every single person, inincluding hundreds of thousands much to young to have ever seen him play will say stan musial had been part of their life. >> you have had him if your home as a guest? >> yes. >> would he talk about baseball? >> yes. but nots a boastful way. in a cheerful way. he reveled in being a ball player. he knew he was going at it but he didn't have to make a case for himself. >> never talked about these guys get more than he did. >> i think when he was left off the list, although he wouldn't say that that rivaled him.
>> he would say boy he might have the best handle ever. he just felt so comfortable in himself here, didn't have t guild the lily on himself. he was who he was and he was about about it. >> and you talk about nerve uniformwith such respect except leo durocher. 67. when he was manager of the dodgers, because he hit for the donnelers so well, deur other thanker would yell back, stick it in his ear. they knocked him down all the time. stan told me that. >> one of the interesting aspects of george a back is that -- it's undeniable, page after page, everybody wants to talk about what a wonderful man stan -- finds thoseccasions that make him human, where
there's anger or resentment or -- >> getting back to the espn thing he was not happybout that. he was not happyhen he was not in the hot 50. he had retired for 26 years. thank ass gimmick. so fan are in t ballpark, they're only as scood as what they have seen. so they noded in four contrary players, mark mcguire, junior clemmons and cal ripken, junior. i smelt none of tho four, if you ld that vote today, bonds would make it ahead of any of those four just on theinatability. >> steroid -- i but griffey ahead of bonds. >> but even at that, there might be junior -- he levelled out at some point. looking backwards you could say junior griffey is a hall of fame
player. and by the way, you talk about him not making at top 25 team. it really was a top 30 team as i understand it bud sealing had planned it. the calvary came to the rescue in the person of bob costas and this committee that met on the phone. >> he had appointed a panel, there were seven or eight of us, just in case there were any injustices and owe medications and we had slot spots to fill. >> when we got together on the conference call, i think there were others lefty grove, christy mason. and because the fans had those overidentities to our last rekrut incleed -- i was all prepared to put those players on til i saw where they had left off. >> talk about what you talk about in the book with the
handling of comg to integration with baseball. >> he has gotten a really bad rap there. there's sort of a knoxious rumor going around that he was in favor of keeping jackie robinson out of baseball. the reity was, it was an all white te and there were some southerners on the team that were i aming. there was a rumor they were dog to strike when they came to -- in may. stan musial made it clear he was going to play. why? he grew up in pennsylvania, an industrial town and western pennsylvania. blacks worked in the town, lived in the town. it was not particular lay segregated area. as he often said in private, i played with those guides. somebody told the story recently. and five of the best players are all brothers and they're sitting in a corner. and stan musial came in and said
deal me in. they looked around and said ok that tells us somethin >> bought you have jackie robinson saying not contemporaneously because he died in 1972 but at one point he did say stan musial was a nice guy like bill hodges, a nice day. they didn't help me. they were not antagonistic toward me. but just a nice guy. >> that's what he thought. that's what he said. i don't know. jackie robinson with a hero in my house. we worshiped him from the time this came uhm. i don't know if he meant it. >> and you have on large number of other players went out of their way to say how supportive stan was. >> he was the general manager of the cards in one year for967 and we won the world series that year against boston and then he
quit. >> why did he quit? >> actually, his business -- he was a terrific businessman and owned a couple of restaurants in . louis he realized he couldn't go on like that. >> who today reminds you most of stan musial? >> boy, there's a good question. >> that's a great question. i don't have a ready answer. >> that guy who was a perfect citizen right in that town. >> rert. >> youknow, the money is different, the pressure is different, but who else as a citizen -- you know, as a talentas a citizen, i mean he is not -- it's not as easy for me to talk to as musial is but
poolhouse is a pern who might -- take a look at the photographs coming out of the book. look a jack kennedy and stan musial in the white house, right, and it looks like the oval office. >> stan was not an extreme left winger but his policier were democratic. >> james michelleener who became his good drinking bud he said he was the only superstar he ever met who was a democrat. >> you will see one there who clearly wasn't. next picture. ted williams. ted nuget. george bush. >> and they loved each other. they were really -- they respected each other. >> stan and ted. >> ted went around saying he was stan musial's mother's player. she went to williams and asked for an autograph and -- >> the best thing williams could say about any player is that guy can hit. that's what he said about dan. they guy can hit.
>> so tell me what it is abt those guys that can hit. what is it that they have? what duds wilams have? what does mantle have? what did -- considering that if you get three hits for every 10 times up, yore a terrific hitter. let's close with this story. you're at mickey mantles funeral and giving the eulogy. >> yes. so it's a big church inallas. and i'm standing uphere delivering the eulogy, and the one thought on my mind is i don't want to make eye contact with merlin mantle -- marilyn mantle, his wide owe, or his surviving son, david, who is the spitting image of mickey. so as you do when you speak publicly, you move your eyes around. and i see a lot of his old yankee teammates and a baseball contemporaries and there were some people missing who you might have expected to have been there. and then i look to my left and about half way back at the end
of the row of pews, by the wall, sitting by himself is the then 73, 74, 75-year-old stan musial. i just catch a glimpse of stan. and in a split second, you real what has happened here. a man no one would have marked absent. he wasn't linked to him like willie maze and louie snider. he never faced him except in all-star game or spring training game. but he dide as a prominent member of the baseball fraternity and somebodyickey cared out that it was the ght thing to do to get out of bed that northern st. louis, get on a plane, fly dallas, mick his esence known, express his respect and condolences. by himself. no entourage or anything. then go back to the airrt and fly home. andometimes you just are struck by an act of simple
decency and kindness. and stan had more than 3,000 lifetime hits. he has about 3 million simple acts of decency and kindness. >> this book covers some of them. stan musial an american life. thank you bob and george. thank you, tim. >> tmas j. tierney and joel fleishman are here, both have been consultants to large foundations. combined they have combined their experience and knowledge in their book "give smart." it is a how to guide with practical advice for effective philanthropy. i'm pleased to have both of them at the table to talk about this book. tell me first, because it is endorsed by lots of people like melinda gates and john whitehead, why do we need a book about giving smart? >> well, our communities need as much impact as possible with every single dollar of giving. in fact most people, philanthropyists and others are
trying to do more with less. so this book will help them accomplish more with limited resources. one of the questions that comes up is how do i make sure if i give this money it will be used well? and your said there are ways not ly to achieve that but to "give smart" in a way that you achieve better results? >> that's absolutely correct. the key really is ask yourself what you're trying to achieve. at your values are. what can you -- can you see what it is at the end of the road that is being done with the money that you're getting. if you don't ask yourself those questions, you know, you lose many opportunities to be sure about what you're going to get gone. >> what are new foundations? how are they different than older foundations? >> more of them now are concerned more about spending their money strategically, focusing, doing evaluations. >> in other words doing it smartly. >> doing it smartly. just bringing to bear what anybody in a business would
normally try to do when they try to accomplish somhing. they do due diligence and they try to figure out what a the remainses and the strategies for doing it, how are we going to know when we get there this really worked. and more and more dors are giving while living and they're engaging in philanthropy. maybe it's one hour a week, maybe it's full time. but their a he not just writing checks. they're trying to contribute other kinds of value added value to their time and money. >> they want to measure results and judge what the money is buying in terms of results. one of the more striking businesses is, inusiness, marketplaces tell you how you're doing. if you're selling a product and the customers aren't buying it, that's feedback. if shareholders are buying your shares, that's feedback. in philanthropy these are not existent. >> within you look at philanthropy today and what they're trying to do, there's
something called the giving pledge. >> correct. >> in which i think 60 to 70 people have signed on. >> 69 at this point. >> saying that they will pledge, not legally bound, to give at least, what, 50%? >> 50 percent of their piltsdz? >> what do you think of that? >> i think it's a great idea. the truth is, in america, most people with lots of wealth do that anyway. you look back at what john d. rockefeller senior wrote. he said i have got so much money i cannot get any satisfactio out of spending the next there are on me. he said i don't need another car, i don't need another suit, i don't need more shoes. the only thing i hav discovered that giv mesatisfaction is sharing that with other people. so the question is, what good is it giving pleasure to? it raises the profile of philanthropy. i argue even more abroad than
here. the whole culture of philanthropy is -- it doesn't exist. i used to tral in the vineyards of bordeaux and people would ask me what i did. >> he is a wine connoisseur among other talents. >> i remember one owner, chef lynch, and he said you mean people in the united states give a million dollars to go to do charity? and i said yes, not only me but a lot of people for charity. >> the idea of people giving away lots of money -- >> so they raised a consciousness of giving. >> yes. especially abroad. look at the new foundations that have been set up in india and china and russia and in latin-america, which is -- it never had it. even in scotland, y have foundations giving away a billion dollars. this is especially true for multiple generations. in other words the giving pledge
not only influences the folks thank the are making the pledge. it influences younger ople who are srting to ask themselves what am i going to do with moy i may have. i may no have a lot of money but what am i going to do? do i contribute now or do i wait? so i think it has a secondary benefit of engaging people on these questions about what matters to me. what impact do i want to have with whatever resources can i bring bare. >> wt was the general -- >> this is a great story. the first cpter of the book are what are my values and beliefs. we suggest all phinthropy is anchored there. what are my beliefs. in other words, what will guide my philanthropy. and -- received a present via fax from warren buffet that was a billion dollars gift that went to their charitable foundation that led them to ask this question, what in the world are we going to spend this moneyn?
i think was a matter of him -- an wantio leave his children in philanthropic resources. then they asked what are we going to do with the money and what values will anchor our philanthropy. and it led to issues around women and girls. >> as you suggested this is abt qutions, what is my value, what is success,hat a i accountable for? what will it take to get the job done? how will i work with grantees. am i getting better. >> so this idea of questions camerom you. >> it came fromoth of us and tom came up with th idea of aski questions. >> well, the observation that philanthropy is personal and that great philanthropy over
time have confronted questions about how they do better and "give smart" and these questions are a derivation of what we have observed. historically today people are ask and then they're asking what the letters for success and then what is an a and how will i held accountable for it. the next three questions are simply around execution, what did you it take to get the job done in terms of resources. how do i work with grantees. warren buff the established, as president you may decide somebody is better than i am because you have other things that youould rather do than be in the -- >> there are lots of ways to give away money. >> what else should you do if
you, at whatever level, want to sohow say, iwant to give because i believe that i -- much has been giv to me a that therefore, even though i do not have, you know, a hundred billion doars i have enough that i can share? well, o things you can do. you may be able to do something by yourself but we say in the book that flying solo is not the best way to do it. but there are examples in the book. for example, the example of the foundation which spent a hundred thousand dollars over 10 years to put lines on the sides of highways so people didn't run off. that's a hundred thousand dollars changed the configuration of highways in this count and save lives. yeah. >> that's a very important thing, if somebody cares about their philanthropy they can run
a project of their own. they have to look at organizations that already exist that share the same values they share. there was an article in time this week about cancer research. it said, if you find there are 77, much 67 organizations i the country that are concentrating on cancer. now you don't have to start 509 -- you can mind of find something and you need to look careful at the organization to find which ones are congruent with what you're trying to do. >> what led you toes? >> in part, he led me t this. he changed my life. >> he did? >> i was running a company called dane and company in the mid 90s. iegan asking questions about my career, what is it going to go and i felt this desire to
serve. >> is this the same bainnd company that mitt romney was involved with it? >>right. professor fleishman and i had large story short he encouraged he. he was working at atlantic -- we started bridgestone and that is to improve the performance of the prects. so i stepped down from this great job. >> your partners thought that you were crazy. >> why did you do it? >> you know, some things in life -- >> despite the question about values gear some things you have to do it. >> did you do it because of the beau or was it what you were made to do and you had to do. >> that's what it felt like. if it not manifested this way, it would have manifested another way. >> it's not the whole story ear
e. either. when he was a bain and running the office, bain, he was working with nonprofits to help them figure out how to help them, almost from the day he got there. and pain did a lot of pro bono work with nonprofits. listen, we have to give nonprofits the same quality of strategic consulting services as the force four hundred can afford to buy. >> if you want to make an evaluation using your own consulting skills, the series of foundations that do it well, what would we discover? >> we discover that they focus on the last question of the six. which is: am i getng better? am i getting better? the reason that is so important is rst greu towns what you're trying to do to begin with.
you ve to be quilling to -- and can i just add 10 to 20% more impact for every dollar. >> and the best donors whether it's foundation -- >> why do those that under perform unr perform. >> because there were no forces outside of them that are encouraging him at the beginning. there's no accountability influence. you have to be responsible for your own success. you have to be accountable to yourself to ensure that you're getting as much as you could go out of the dollars. >> the people is. thomas j. tierney and joel fleishman. u