Weighing the impact of $190 billion.

In keeping with the adage that there's no such thing as a wrong opinion, my view is that the "New Wealth/New Philanthropy" session was the best presented and most informative of the entire 2000 Seattle convention.

Having made this sweeping statement, allow me to explain.

Editorial writers and editorial page editors by their very nature are heavily political. Outside of the usual United Way or some similar local editorial, we usually don't go in depth on a subject like philanthropy. No more -- or, at least I hope not.

Many of my NCEW colleagues confided to each other at later events that they had no idea that giving under what we've dubbed "the New Philanthropy" totaled an incredible $190 billion last year. But we found out, thanks to the panelists, what has been happening, what to expect in the future, and how it will impact our nation and world.

The selection of Michael Kinsley of Slate as a moderator for the other panelists was a fine choice. Use of a moderator is an excellent tool in keeping a session lively and the information pouring forth. Kinsley often did the work of the audience, periodically asking probing questions of Patty Stonesifer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (and formerly of Microsoft), Paul Brainerd of Social Venture Partners, philanthropic consultant John Goodwin, and Project Look Director Roxanne Lyons.

Stonesifer, for example, was momentarily at a loss for words when Kinsley turned to the NCEW audience and asked if the image of Microsoft in recent years was a tarnished one. There were some fevered "yesses" and "ayes," much in the style of how British parliamentarians shout back during their question time.

Stonesfier, however, went on to hold her own and gave a thoughtful though sometimes rambling explanation of the domestic and foreign good that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing. She stressed that books and teachers, and not necessarily Internet access, are the prime focus in the Foundation's Third World efforts.

Goodwin also gave a fascinating insight on how a consultant advises various philanthropists on strategies. In determining how assets are targeted to help a community or country, he said, "no question is too stupid to ask."

Lyons noted "we can fail, but we learn from it" -- and cited the use of various vaccines in disease prevention programs as an example.

The common thread of all the panelists is that this new burst of giving, which is projected to total in the untold trillions within two decades, is simply being done by givers with a social conscience who want to make a difference in our world.

One questioner, Fred Fiske of The Syracuse Newspapers, wondered if government and "the democratic system" was being edged aside by this private "New Philanthropy" Brainerd, Goodwin, and an NGEW Canadian questioner all had interesting rejoinders. They said, in effect, that it's heartening that billions of this new money is reaching into remote areas and bettering people's lives in ways that government couldn't begin to address. That debate could have continued but, alas, the time was up.

A pox on anyone in attendance who didn't go back home and later write an editorial or column on what we learned.

NCEW member Phil Kent is apolitical columnist for The Augusta Chronicle in Georgia.