I have posted several times about my Food Bank work. I'm not doing this to say "Hey look at me aren't I so giving?" After all, I'd barely done any work over the years with them, aside from donations and occasional assistance at the pantry.
I'm a firm believer in giving back in some form, and doing it quietly. In the Bible, Jesus made it clear you shouldn't promote your good works in order to promote yourself, and I believe that. My grandfather also felt this way, his donations always came from "A Friend" and no other ID was provided. I tend to do this, as well. Anonymity (or some degree of it) here helps reduce the impact of me promoting myself via 'good works'.
On the other hand, drawing attention to needs, and providing useful information about charitable works is not easily done without a reasonable voice. To a degree, I give some celebrities a pass when they promote their 'good works'. A lot depends on just how they are doing that work. If they make it about themselves and what they are doing (Ed Begley, Jr. and his incessant BS about how 'green' he is would be an example - he's wealthy, so it's easy to be 'green' and it's a means by which he can draw attention to his declining celebrity status), then I tend find their points less credible.
If they are just helping to share a message and provide tips or other information, then I feel it's good for them to provide a platform. Martin Sheen, a man whose politics I have no love for and completely disagree with, walks the walk. I give him a big pass because he does a lot of work and does it very quietly. Sure, he gets press from time to time about the stuff he does (how else would I know?) but he isn't someone going out and demanding coverage or requiring it to keep himself front and center. I respect that approach.
In the comments section to my post yesterday, Assistant Village Idiot used a G.K. Chesterton quote which I quite liked. "It is true that there is a thing crudely called charity, which means charity to the deserving poor; but charity to the deserving is not charity at all, but justice. It is the undeserving who require it, and the ideal either does not exist at all, or exists wholly for them."
From my point of view, particularly in today's day and age, justice is not the best word, though the quote is generally accurate. I do not like the word 'justice' because it implies those needing charity have somehow been done wrong. In many cases, they have been done 'wrong' in some form. Either the vagaries of life, circumstance, or some other human error or flaw took things or opportunity from them. They may have lost the DNA lottery or the IQ lottery, or been injured in some way. They may not have the wherewithal to pick up and move on as many others do, after a failure. However, there are also some cases where they have made bad choices or decisions. Often knowingly and not caring of the consequences, almost to the point of relying on the backstop of 'charity' and a sense of 'justice'. Still fewer will just abuse the systems of charity simply because they can be abused. You cannot eliminate the abuse completely without eliminating the very good things which charitable efforts provide. But this is why using a word like "justice" implies to some (and you know who they are because the SJWs use this concept all the time) that there is a remedy to 'fix' this 'injustice'. There is no remedy, at least no remedy beyond the individual choice to do right, do well, and do good whenever you can.
However, the remedy most often employed is, obviously, government. Government is a poor tool for providing charity. It is inherently corrupt and from a purely economic standpoint adds costs that are unnecessary in terms of bureaucratic and administrative needs (known as 'deadweight loss' in economic terms). Government is not charity and should never be seen as a form of charity. Charity is an individual choice of goodness and humanity. It is a choice to help those who deserve real 'justice' (in Chesterton's words) and a bit of respite from the daily grind that may force them into bad situations. The current policy approach - to make it all government driven - is dangerous because it increases poor decision making.
Government-based or run entities and programs create opportunities for corruption and moral hazard. Many may feel it absolves them of guilt to have their taxes taken and used to 'help', but it also creates opportunities for wrongdoing, almost always on a grand scale.
Charity starts at home. It does not start in Washington, DC or any other government building. A politician who uses his charitable work to create credibility for him or herself is a liar, a cheat and a thief. When you see them promoting their 'charitable works' you can be sure it is small part of what they are doing - small enough to get a photo op then walk away.
As a good friend of mine said, when a politician proposes it, he's saying, "I'll gladly do good works with another's money." When a citizen votes for that politician, he's saying, "I'll do good works with my own money, if government holds a gun to my head."
