'A gaggle of the ludicrously rich'

Where to from here -

"It's the least I could do," utters the twenty-something bottle-blonde actress in response to her recent volunteer work.

These are the only words she can string together due to her skyrocketing self-esteem.

Your damn right it's the least you could do.

The tragic earthquake in Haiti last month has unfortunately once again presented an opportunity for Hollywood to dust off its charity hat and tuck it back squarely on its head. They are patting rears in L.A., commending each other for all their selfless work as they meet for business lunches consisting of endangered fish. Later, over ridiculously expensive coffee they will likely discuss renovating kitchens they never use.

Now, don't misunderstand me.

I support international aide to countries devastated by natural disasters. It is humanity's responsibility to help one another in times of crisis. I just can't swallow down this altruistic good samaritanism pill without concern, especially the super sweetened flavour pouring out of the entertainment industry each and every time disaster strikes. I have to wonder if it even is charity when you have more money than you deserve in the first place! Not that entertainers see it this way of course. No, they feel that whatever genetic windfall presented them their good fortune entitles them to multi-million dollar homes, luxury yachts and more sneakers than they could ever wear. That is obviously their due as stars, right?

No. It's not right. No one needs seven high end vehicles and no one's dog needs a diamond collar. That's lunacy. So I'm not inspired to action when a gaggle of the ludicrously rich grace the television screen urging me to donate what little money I have while they continue their hyper-indulgent lifestyles. In essence, we are supporting a self-esteem program aimed at a sector of society guilt ridden by their massively unfair consumption of resources. It is not my job to make George Clooney feel better about his annual leisure expenditures. And at the end of the day, that small amount of money means more to the average citizen than the million dollars Leo donated. So why then do we hold them in such high regard for generous acts that aren't so generous upon closer inspection?

This is one of many reasons why massive celebrity induced charity doesn't work. Also, it isn't sustainable and the relationship between giver and receiver is under great strain. Sustainability wise, good causes keep themselves afloat in that if they ever achieved any of their goals they would put themselves out of business. Ending hunger in Africa would effectively cause unemployment for thousands, fundraising being a billion dollar industry fueled by international tragedy. This obvious conflict of interest is ignored by the vast majority in developing nations in hopes that some miracle will occur, righting the wrongs in whatever region the organization supports. More often than not though, the public becomes inpatient and support ceases forcing the organization to move onto the next cause before the effort at hand is completed. We do not have to look further than Afghanistan for proof of this trend.

The blatant hypocrisy causes resentment to grow between the giver and receiver. The giver feeling superior, the receiver feeling inferior and not a healthy feeling amongst the lot. This type of dependency fosters an environment not conducive to development as the giver requires the receiver to remain in need in order to feel righteous. The mass revolt from anonymous giving to accredited giving supports the not wholly benevolent nature of this type of charity. In the west, we freely donate to highly publicized causes in order to assuage our guilt concerning our monumental wastefulness. Donating a hundred bucks a year to the Red Cross should not be viewed as a permit to run through natural resources at the rate in which we currently do.

Here at home in Canada, we pride ourselves in the amount of foreign aide we bequest to under-developing nations but neglect our own citizens living in sub-standard conditions. Surely people are unable to seriously take advice from a country who has not yet dealt with their own humanitarian issues. And if anything has been proven by the how we handle our society's ills at home, it is that throwing large sums of money at problems without properly understanding the challenges involved does not work. It just further complicates matters and creates additional problems.

Charity is not solely an international affair. It starts at home, in our own communities. And it is not solely measured monetarily. Your time is far more valuable than your dollar. We no more require Brad Pitt to tell us to be kind to our neighbours, than we require Hallmark to tell us to show love to our spouses. I hope Haiti gets the attention and support it needs to rebuild, I hope that for all developing nations. But from now on let's not just respond to tragedy but preempt it by being more responsible global citizens on a daily basis. It's the least we can do.