the ONE campaign
Have you seen the adverts for the ONE Campaign? It's a way for celebrities to work off their community service by telling me to donate money to poor people. Granted, I don't know all the ins and outs of the project. And I certainly have a dollar, even several dollars I could spare for people in terrible situations.
But damn, who the hell is Brad Pitt, a guy who makes about 1000x as much as the average person, to ask for donations? All of these celebrities live extremely lavishly. I find myself doubting Mr. Pitt's dedication to wiping out poverty while he's still sinking millions into mansions, vacation homes, and expensive cars. The whole thing is somewhat disingenuous. I can't help but feel like I'm being taken advantage of.
But damn, who the hell is Brad Pitt, a guy who makes about 1000x as much as the average person, to ask for donations? All of these celebrities live extremely lavishly. I find myself doubting Mr. Pitt's dedication to wiping out poverty while he's still sinking millions into mansions, vacation homes, and expensive cars. The whole thing is somewhat disingenuous. I can't help but feel like I'm being taken advantage of.
10 Comments:
First, the ONE Campaign is merely asking for your VOICE -- there is NO MONEY INVOLVED... Well, other than that of the US government.
Secondly, allow me to tell you a little about the campaign. It's really more like a petition - an online petition asking that President Bush dedicate an additional ONE (get it?) percent of the US budget toward humanitarian assistance to fight the global AIDS emergency and end extreme poverty. (I promise I'm not an official spokesperson for the ONE Campaign... I've just gotten really into it...)
And finally, at the risk of sounding like the stereotypical Brad-Pitt-Stalker, I'm gonna speak up in his defense. While he may still be making millions (Mr. and Mrs. Smith apparently raked in over $50 million this weekend alone), he plans to sell the mansion he and Jennifer Aniston designed... I don't know about vacation homes or expensive cars, but I do think he is genuine in his determination to do something about the poverty he's seen in Africa time and time again. He said in an interview with Diane Sawyer recently, "I can't get out of the press. These people can't get in the press. So let's redirect the attention a little bit. ... We have the potential to end poverty (in Africa) in our time. ... Man - I mean, what's more exciting than that? The potential's there. We gotta go for it."
I knew I could count on you to reply. Ok, I should have watched the entire ONE commercial. Attention span, what can I say.
As for Brad, is he donating the money from the mansion sale, or just selling it? If he keeps the money then there's nothing charitable about it. And yes, media coverage has all sorts of problems. We do focus way too much on Brad Pitt. But when you make tens of millions of dollars a year, redirecting media attention isn't enough to prove your dedication to wiping out extreme poverty. I think he genuinely feels bad for these people, but feeling bad won't wipe out pverty.
Okay... I don't know what he'll do with the money from the mansion, but from what I understand, the idea is not to shove individuals' money at Africa and be done with it (while I do agree that Brad could make a significant drop into that bucket). The idea is to show Americans -- especially President Bush -- that a very small percentage of our budget can make an incredible difference in solving some of the world's problems.
Brad (like how we're on a first-name basis now? we're such great friends...) is going beyond just redirecting media attention. He is one of the main spokespeople for the campaign. He's been over to Africa numerous times, researching and working with Save the Children.
I just learned that on Saturday the G-8 conference agreed to write off more than $40 billion of African debt. The deal will IMMEDIATELY wipe out the debts owed by the 18 poorest countries in the world, and 38 countries total, most of which are in Africa. Final terms of the deal will extend to nine more countries in 12 - 18 months, and then eleven more countries -- bringing the total write off to $55 billion.
So it looks like progress IS being made.
... and also that there's more to be done...
I don't think G8 was in response to anything ONE has done. Let's not imply credit where credit isn't due.
You think it has NOTHING to do with it? Granted, the ONE Campaign did not win over G-8 single-handedly. I'm not that naieve. However, according to the NYTimes, "It took them more than five years and required the star power of Hollywood names like Brad Pitt and leading evangelicals like Pat Robertson.
But the potent campaign built by Granola Belt charities, flamboyant rock musicians and movie celebrities, number-crunching economists, conservative and liberal religious groups - not to mention the Dalai Lama - finally helped persuade the world's wealthiest nations to forgive the debt of some of the world's poorest."
No, the NYTimes is not the ultimate say-so, but most consider it a reliable source of information. Yes, that statement was written by someone, some person, but it also acknowledges that these groups "helped" persuade the leaders of the eight richest countries in the world to do something about the poorest.
PS - "they have everything I need" ... YEAH we do... ;-)
I'm not sure that wiping out the debt of those countries is really any progress. The government realizes that money is gone and will never get it back, so why bother keeping track of it? That ship has sailed. It's not like those countries suddenly have $40 billion to play with. They're exactly where they were yesterday, minus an IOU hanging over their heads. But I doubt they were particularly worried about it.
Forgive me for being a cynic, but I trust Hollywood about as far as I can throw it. It's a lot easier to tell the government to do something than to do something ourselves.
That having been said, I'd support the government in sending relief over there. I wouldn't do 1%, though -- I'd start at something like .1% given to one specific region, and if the program has visible, quantifiable success, then we could talk about a slow ramp up toward more money.
But these countries have problems that money alone won't solve. Giving them 1% of our taxpayer dollars won't necessarily solve their problems. And if you're an American living in poverty, how would you feel if the government were giving money to poverty in Africa while you sat there trying to get a grant so your kid can go to college?
the thing about it is you cant criticise people for doing things to help the world--simply because they are better off than you--im sure you could donate more money than someone working in a sweat shop in mexico--but do you?--so is it ok for the to criticise you for it?
i hate this mentality that "what they are doing isnt enough"--it is not any actors job to change the world--it is their job to act--end of story--the fact that some choose to try and make a difference in the world is above and beyond--not required
(side note im sure brad pitt donates massive amounts of money--maybe only for the tax break--but still...)
what have you done lately to try and change the world for the better?--so why can you criticize someone for trying to do that?
it was an obvious jump conclusion on your part because you misunderstood the whole point of the campaign and didnt even watch the whole one minute clip
yes we live in a sad time when congressmen telling us we need to get behind something doesnt work--and the only thing that does get it moving is a celebrity deciding to use some of their fame to help it--people are stupid--people are uninformed--and it is not the governments job or a celebritys job to make you think and learn--that is yours--and the fact that you choose not to means that you should remain quiet and let those who do the thinking and learning speak
and just re-read what you originally put--(assuming it was asking for a dollar which it isnt)--your saying that because brad pitt is rich you arent going to donate a dollar to help starving children?--where is the logic in that
god bless america...ns
I have to respond to Andy first, because I said I would. If I were a poor American and my gov't sent money away, I would be mad. Grrr, damn you government. However, if I were a rich American and I had to pay an estate tax, I'd be mad. If I were an old American and they raised the retirement age I'd be mad. Sometimes the gov't pisses of constituent groups to do what's best for the nation as a whole. Perhaps combatting the African aids crisis is one such thing. I don't know.
Now to you, ns. (Who are you, by the way?) You raise the exact problem I'm struggling with - "i'm sure you could donate more money than someone working in a sweat shop in mexico--but do you?--so is it ok for the[m] to criticise you for it?" Maybe it is. I spent $4 on ice cream the other night. That's school for 3 months for a poor African kid. I could never look one of them in the face as I have some Cookie Dough and say, "sorry. I wanted some dessert." I just wonder where the line is, and haven't figured that out yet.
And I do not for a moment think it's an actor's job to change the world. I think it's every person's job to do what they say they are going to do. And when Brad Pitt (or any other celebrity - he just happened to jump into my mind first) says he is dedicated to wiping out extreme poverty, THEN it becomes his reponsibility to follow through with that. When he's got suits worth more than my life savings, I see a disconnect there. "Hey, let's wipe out poverty. We'll take the private jet. Caviar?"
And I'm not donating a dollar to help starving children because I'm an asshole.
Post a Comment
<< Home