December 16, 2002

• Christmas Charity

  
  

  Do you feel that urge to reach into your wallet at Christmas-time to offer support for homeless people, poverty-stricken children, families with a parent in prison?  I do. 

  
  

  I'm pleased to recommend two charities to you.  These are not the only options at this time of year, but my wallet is thin so I have to keep my list short.  The first is the Salvation Army.  You've probably seen them at the mall, the grocery, or the Walmart parking lot ringing a bell, singing a carol, and standing next to a bright red collection bucket.  The Salvation Army is a $2.1 billion a year enterprise with a chief executive officer who makes $13,000 a year.  No, that's not a misprint.  Compare that to the $450,000 a year salary of Marsha Evans who heads up the American Red Cross and you get a quick understanding of how it is that the Salvation Army maintains an astonishing 84% flow-through rate of contributions applied to charitable services.

  
  

  The Salvation Army commandeered 24 buildings to provide a million square feet of space for the donations of Americans to the disaster relief at the World Trade Center.  Trucks lined up by the hundreds with sandwiches, food for the rescue dogs, cases of water, and thousands of bottles of eye drops. 

  
  

  With 9,222 centers and 45,000 employess coast to coast the Salvation army is best known for its work with the homeless, the addicted and the poor.  It also acts as the probationary arm for county judges in Florida (up to 50,000 people on probation annually report to Army staff.)  It sponsors summer camps reaching over 156,000 kids and about 100,000 kids drop by Army centers and boys and girls clubs to swim, shoot pool, or do homework.  Add in work done in nursing homes, prisons and hospitals and the number of Americans directly touched by the Salvation Army last year grows to 38,000,000.  That's about one in eight.

  
  

  So I give my blood to the Red Cross, but my money goes to the Salvation Army.

  
  

  The second charity I support at this time of year is Prison Fellowship's Angeltree program.  Prison Fellowship is headed by former white house aid Chuck Colson of Watergate fame.  (And yes, even after all this time he has not repented of being a Republican, but I support him anyway.)  After his two year prison term ended, this man whom Mike Wallance once referred to as one of the coldest, hardest-headed men in Washington began a ministry that reaches back to other men and women still behind bars.  At Christmas time the Angeltree arm of the ministry provides Christmas gifts to the children of the incarcerated.  The gifts are purchased by people like me, then delivered to the child on behalf of that parent.

  
  

  Given the dismal statistical outcomes for children of inmates, it's important to me to mitigate the horror, pain, loss and stigma of having a parent in prison even in a small way by making sure these kids are remembered at Christmas time.

  
  

  What do you do for charity?  Do you believe that charities work?  Or do they simply make people like you and me feel good about ourselves without making a real difference in the lives of the people they serve?  Given the recent legislative penchant for slashing welfare budgets, what role do you see traditional charities performing over the next quarter century?  Should faith-based charities be allowed to work with public agencies to serve the needy population that's being cut off from public support?  Which is more effective publicly sponsored welfare programs or private charities?

  
  

  Is God Republican or Democrat?

  
  

  I had the opportunity to listen to All Things Considered on NPR this afternoon.  They were gleefully discussing the recent faux pas of Senate Majority leader (for now) Trent Lott of Mississippi.  Last week at a 100th birthday party for the curmudgeonly old Strom Thurman, Lott remarked that the country would have been better off had Thurman won his 1948 presidential campaign.  Since that compaign was waged on the basis of "states rights" which were code words for continued segragation, Lott's remarks have been interpreted as a Freudian slip exposing his underlying racism.

  
  

  That may or may not be the case.  He may have simply been exposing his abysmal ignorance of history.  Or he may have been attemting to praise the Senatorial accomplishments of the Strom Thurman he worked with after he himself came to Congress many years after Thurman's failed campaign.  In any event, the remarks were unfortunate and have been the cause of much analysis and speculation about Lott's position as Senate Majority Leader.  I'm not a good guessor about such things.  I have thought each week for the past several that Clay was about to be evicted from Survivor, but he's still living on the beach.

  
  

  One of the callers to the program wanted to know if this incident is important because underneath it all Republicans are essentially racist in their politics and personal conviction.  Frankly, since the Republicans have loudly proclaimed themselves to be the upholders of morality in contrast to the sinful Democrats, it gives me some pleasure that they may have to squirm a bit over this one.  However, I don't believe that it necessarily makes all Republicans racist is one of thier number is exposed to be so any more than I believe it necessarily makes all Democrats adulterous that one of theirs got caught with ... well, you were there, you know about the cigar and the thong panties.

  
  

  Once I get over my fit of giggles at the Republican predicament, I return to my long held opinion.  God is neither Republican nor Democrat.  There are some Republican issues which strike me as morally responsible and some Democratic issues which strike me the same way.  Neither party has a lock on character or the lack thereof.  We are only surprised by the revelation of naughtiness if we've somehow bought into the propoganda that particular party membership brings immunity to the temptations common to man.

  • 4:33 pm
  • 17 Comments