I'm sure nobody who reads me regularly would be surprised to hear me say that I think that compassion should come from those who choose to be compassionate, not from the government forcing "compassion" (forced compassion is no compassion at all, IMO). I take issue with the current crop of celebrity liberals who are spending absurd amounts of money to implement a government that adds social programs and a tax burden to accompany it, especially when I consider the net worth of some of the people underwriting these ads. So, I did a little googling (I only highlighted those whose political affiliations I know). In the Fortune 400, I found the following individuals, followed by their respective net worths:
George Soros, 7 billion; Steven Spielberg, 2.5 billion, Ted Turner, 2.3 billion, Oprah Winfrey, 1.1 billion.
These people have a combined net worth of $12.9 billion dollars. All but Soros have the entertainment/media industry as their primary source of income, and thus, possess incredible resources for change.
Add to these celebrities such as Alec and Billy Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, Michael Moore, Dave Matthews, and Bill Clinton that have been harshly critical of the social programs of the Republican party, and you have a celebrity base (these are just a few, by the way), who could very easily use their earnings potential to virtually eliminate poverty in this country, and yet they choose not to. Of the above list, none except Matthews and Mellencamp (Farm Aid) have been active contributors of their time and resources in a real way to impact and work to eliminate poverty. If Michael Moore made one movie a year whose proceeds were dedicated entirely to private social service organizations, I have no doubt people would flock to see it, knowing that their money was going to do some higher social good (assuming the movie wasn't crap). The same goes for Spielberg. If Mellencamp, Springsteen, and Matthews set aside a limited number of engagements in large venues whose proceeds were dedicated to those causes, again, I think there are a good number of people who would attend. The beauty of this approach is that it would not force involvement from those who do not want to be involved.
So the question must be asked: WHY? The answer, quite simply, is that these celebrities are as self serving as anyone else; in some ways more so. Because their words are inconsistent with their actions, they are hypocritical finger pointers, while the "less compassionate" ( I have a hard time believing there are many who have NO compassion; they just have different ideas about how to approach problems) aren't forced to give to charities that aren't consistent with what they believe. If someone has a pulpit with the visibility of these people, they have a choice in how they use that pulpit. It would be nice to see them use that pulpit to make a difference.
signing off,
Gideon MacLeish