I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Whatever happened to taking care of your own before trying to help others.

American celebs and philanthropists sending more money out of the USA that could be better used here helping our own children. Unamerican!!

"Sweep off your own porch before you sweep off someone else's"

Celebs wouldn't give a penny to anything if there wasn't a TAX advantage. For anybody who thinks they are generous and good hearted your dreaming.

Celebs will not and do not give money or there time for anything unless it has some economical benefit of some type. They are some of the cheapest people on the planet. You be lucky to get the time of day out of any of them.

I cringe every time I hear about some multi-billionaire donating money to charity.

I don't cringe because I have anything against charity; in fact, I have a high regard for true charities, as if charity needs a modifier.

I cringe because, to me, charity is selfless, not self-serving.

Billionaires and even lowly millionaires, may or may not be altruistic about giving to "charity," but in either event they gain considerable benefits from their donations. Not insignificant among the benefits of giving is the generous tax deductions granted by both the federal and state governments.

Charitable Tax Deductions

If you think about it for a moment you'll realize that when Bill Gates gives $1 billion to charity he gets a tax write off. The government has a budget equal to its expenses, so if it does not collect money because of charitable deductions, it has to raise that money someplace else -- and you know where!

On top of that, charities that receive multi-million dollar contributions from individuals or corporations treat their beneficiaries like gods. If the benefactor recommends someone for a job at the charity, you can bet they'll get the job!

That's power, and only a sample of benefits contributors receive. Just look at the Rockefeller and Ford foundations if you have any doubt about it.

My dictionary defines charity as "benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity." I don't believe givers should be getting anything in return except gratitude.

Three simple letters that would render malaria a non-issue in Africa: DDT.

Let's take away the charitable tax benefit, then see how many of these fine mega-rich people stand up with checkbook in hand.

Well bully for these self serving celebs and the other big donors. I wouldn't give a red cent to their so called good deeds. Africa and over counties like it are over populated and continue not to take birth control seriously and will continue to do so until the likes of the celebs stop giving them the means to do so.

So if any one of these celebs thinks I would give them a pat on the back or go see their movies or buy their music because of it they are so badly mistaken. Not one penny for any one of these people who make our planet ever more unlivable by supporting over population.

They want to do something, pay for the men to be fixed after they have impregnated one time.

I dont care about write-offs; people are being helped, lives are being saved because of the generosity of the donors. Celebs or not, many of the rich and, yes, celebs spend their money on foolish things, shopping sprees at Niemann's, 3 Rolls Royces, or world travels or whatever else. Don't critize those who give for they don't have to. Yes, people in the U,S, need help but we do not have a malaria problem, furthermore, people give their MONEY to the causes that suit them. Until you personally give to the cause, it is not anybody's call as to what others so with their money.

 Rachel Carlson was wrong. Controled use of DDT would wipe out the malaria worldwide. The US government won't admit they were wrong banning this chemical. It has been proved that's its not a hazard to wildlife, and even it is, which is more important the critters or the 1 million humans that die every year malaria. By maintaining this ban we are not only killing a million a year in third world countries but will be killing and injuring people here with mosquito's carrying West Nile and other diseases. Just another example political correctness out of control.

Kudos to the public figures that donated the mosquito nets to Zambia, my country. But may I make an appeal that it would help much more if some money were channeled to research it making the insects sterile, so that they are completely eradicated.

If the world would allow DDT back on the market, NO ONE would need to contract malaria or any other disease carried by mosquitoes. There is NO evidence to show that DDT is dangerous. My father used it all the time in our orchard when I was growing up. I am now 58, and have no health issues other than high blood pressure.

It is only due to Mr. Ruckleshaus who back in the 70's was given a report on DDT but never took time to read it and made up his mind that DDT was bad. Way to go, to not take time to read an important report and now thousands upon thousands of people have died or been infected with these deadly diseases. Time to rethink things folks......no one should have to die because they are denied a chemical that would irradicate disease carrying insects.

Efforts to eradicate malaria in some countries may be counter-productive, an international team of researchers suggest.

"Eliminating malaria from countries where the intensity of transmission is high and stable, such as in tropical Africa, will require more potent tools and stronger health systems than are available today."

Stronger health systems include simple soap and water applications.