Charity Shops

Dear readers,

What a time this has been. I have been fighting the technological powers that be since I announced that I was back on the blog scene. Apparently, some of them must have heard this, took exception to it and then set their respective viruses upon me.

Now, I am an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal. I enjoy the literary style and the honesty of view point. The paper is conservative and makes no bones about it and I like to know what the enemy is thinking. However, even though I realize that the paper is represents a certain homogenous constituency with a very narrow point of view colored by a powerful lust for money and an almost Dickensian villain-like selfishness there are times when sections of the writing goes entirely too far to the right. One piece in particular, “Shopping for the Poor” in the Review an Outlook section, went so far to the right that it actually went past conservative hailed a cab and directed it past “compassionate” conservatism and neo-conservatism.

I try to skip over articles that are not reports or reviews but I was attracted to “Shopping” because it mentioned Project RED. Due to technical difficulties, I was late to the party in verbally assaulting Bono’s newest campaign to fight AIDS in Africa. I have my own ideas about the effectiveness of high profile charities and, when I can, I support organizations that I feel actually serve their mission. When I give I ask for nothing in return. In fact I would like those to whom I give to stop wasting money on endless slick mailings on non-recyclable clay paper, address labels, galas, magnets, CDs, mugs or any other thank you gift. I am not donating money to indirectly support the firms that make any of these items. The greatest thanks a charity can give me is to carry out the work which I support. They can list my name or publish progress reports and appeals via email or on a website. Better yet, put all that info in a blog. Blogs are free.

I loathe the type of fundraiser whereby a portion of the proceeds goes towards saving/helping the –fill in the- nationality, malady or social ill. How about simply the proceeds- all of them- go towards the goal.

Enter project RED.

According the article, Project RED “recruits companies- Apple and Armani- among others- to sell specially branded RED versions of their products. Consumers are told that a portion of the proceeds will be used to fight AIDS in Africa.” Selfless. Since one of the companies involved is the Gap, sweatshop sponsor and environmental polluter the “developing” world over, it seems that the profit of one evil will assist in the combat another while reaping a nice profit and an equally nice write off for corporate participants. What more could a company ask for? Even better, they can get a slew of celebrities- I hope some of the same ones who are claiming that they are African too - to shill for their product, I mean their charity. All I have to do is follow Beyonce’s instructions to support AIDS eradication and buy a t-shirt or a Motorola phone, or a pair of Converse. The idea that conspicuous consumption of luxury goods- not one of the sponsors manufacturers needs rather than wants- can be an act of charity highlights so many issues in our societal mindset that a liberals arts student could waste, I mean, devote a whole independent study to it. I think that it is tragic, and I have to agree with Toronto Star’s Jennifer Wells opinion that “They just don't need to sell us stuff in order to do good. They can behave like the rest of us: cut a cheque. And make it a big one.”

But cutting a check, Ms. Wells, does not involve a media blitz with celebrity appearances and tons and tons of feel good PR. On the website http://www.joinred.com/, the words “Africa” and “AIDS” are hard to find. After all, who wants to think about the dark diseased continent while shopping for Emporio Armani goods? Sign up and they will send you product updates on what to buy, I mean, on how to fight AIDS. You get the idea. Maybe I am too cynical or perhaps as the author of “Shopping” asserts, I am of the elitist “mindset, which assumes that the only good charity is the kind that requires sacrifice”. I thought charity was about sacrifice and altruism, you know, not asking for anything in return save a warm fuzzy feeling. I guess I am old fashioned. The next time I go out and give I am going to make damn sure that I, and faceless corporate entities, get something in return. Why should the poor, the undernourished, the disease stricken, the homeless, refugees and orphans be the only ones to benefit from my largesse. Don’t I deserve something too? I should at least get an Ipod.