Tags: polemic

not billy

Celebrity Philanthropy.

Why do we brand as insincere the philanthropic behaviour of celebrities?

More than once I've heard a fellow peasant state that "rich/famous person X is evil" in spite of said person's charitable efforts for the year being greater than what most of us put in our entire lives; "He's rich, a few million means nothing to him" (as I've heard said by angry open source software advocates toward Bill Gates).

A few star studded self servicing million toward charity is still a few million more than anyone who reads this will ever contribute.

The myth of celebrity is bizarre; we aspire to it, yet we so frequently judge those who have it with seemingly paradoxical and illogical reasoning.

Whether philanthropy is motivated by altruistic or self serving notions - what should matter is the bottom line. Does the person getting immunised in Africa care that the free treatment was funded by a celebrity who may have been acting partly in self interest? Given the choice I'd take a hit of BonoBrand Penecilin(tm) over dying of a disease that the west hasn't heard about for 50 years. Maybe next time I'm witness to criticism of celebrity philanthropy I'll ask how many immunisations their integrity has funded.

Update:
eh, so I guess it's a pretty stupid question. As people we are naturally interested in [ the superficial ] aspects of public figures. It should come as no surprise that we assume that the public figures themselves are superficlal through association. The contrast of a figure we see as living a primarily superficial existence undertaking meaningful activities will naturally raise our suspicions of their intent.

...

This is why blogs rule.

You can be up to the second, edgy, self referential, and self indulgent, in public.

It's like I've had this entire conversation with myself.

But it's still more interesting than having it with you.