Katha Pollitt on "The Kindness of Strangers"

 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090223/pollitt

First two fifths:

It's hard to believe, but there was a time not so long ago when
charity was going to save the world. The right argued for a
"compassionate conservatism" that would transfer the care and feeding
of the poor from government to churches, while liberals, who saw
government funds for good works shrinking, increasingly relied on the
kindness of foundations and NGOs. Bill Gates, George Soros and other
titans became masters of a burgeoning nonprofit universe, donating
huge sums for healthcare, education, antipoverty programs and the
bolstering--or creation--of "civil society" around the world. Bono was
its troubadour and Slate, with its annual list of the sixty most
munificent donors, was its scorekeeper. Bill Clinton, who famously
proclaimed "the era of big government is over," was its impresario.

That philanthropic agendas might be skewed by pet enthusiasms or whims
or ego was but a detail. Indeed, Warren Buffett was regarded as a
mystifyingly self-abnegating saint because he gave $31 billion to the
Gates Foundation instead of starting his own. Another detail: the use
of philanthropy to mute criticism. Philip Morris used big donations to
the arts to prettify its tobacco-stained corporate image. Rick Warren
won acceptance, even from some progressives, for his work in Africa,
even though that work also includes heavy proselytizing and alliances
with pastors who stage condom bonfires and preach that faith in Jesus
will cure HIV.

I'm for giving. I think tithing is wonderful. It's not a good economic
moment to say this, but millions of Americans spend too much money on
stuff they don't need and don't even really want, which is why it ends
up squashed at the back of the closet or collecting dust on a shelf.
Wouldn't it be better for everyone (except the makers and sellers of
said stuff) if Americans gave more and saved more? After all, donating
a book to a school library or a bag of groceries to a hard-up family
generates as much economic activity as if you bought those items for
yourself. If you have your shoes resoled instead of throwing them
away, you save money and provide work for cobblers (a vanishing craft
before this recession). I don't have a lot of time for leftists who
won't give a quarter to a beggar on the street because it's up to the
state to provide for such people: that beggar should shape up and join
the ISO!

(end of excerpts)


I would love to see what the U.S. would look like if individuals
slowly but surely moved towards saving, spending on necessities for
the future, and spending on the needy. Of course, it would HAVE to be
done slowly. It would be safe to say that the economy depends on
individuals' spending well over half of what they do on stuff they
don't need, or, at least, food, clothing and shelter that's more
expensive than necessary.

Oh, and since people are simply not going to have more children than
they want, even to support the taxpayers - ha ha - why can't we accept
that and find other ways to support the elderly and others? Personal
frugality would make a big difference.

Lenona.

  What bothers me is who do we define as needy, and why did they get to be
needy?
Why should I work my butt off to give to someone who does what they want and
expects to be bailed out by others when they should know better?  The truly
disabled,
who can't help being in that position, is another story.
ares

 Just so you know, the next sentence is:

"Still, the global economic crisis is showing how wishful was the
notion that large-scale amelioration of drastic conditions--poverty,
illiteracy, infant mortality--could be achieved by freewill offerings
from well-intentioned individuals, even if those individuals happened
to be billionaires......"

Read on.

Lenona.

 
lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:

"The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy
appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other." --Ronald
Reagan