Celebs, no crisis to waste

[RotBaron]

It would seem this is the same theme through disaster and tragedy; they are in it for themselves. Well, most.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/10/29/did-celebs-stay-involved-after-hurricane-sandy-floodwaters-receded/

Is this really news? It must be, because relief-fund raising doesn't seem to go anywhere without the latest pop star, and yet I'd imagine a poll would reveal that the majority feel that most celebs are in it mainly for their own benefit.

Of course there are always the truly altruistic and benevolent ones; fewer and much further though.

'tis what it is, I'm sure those who needed relief were very grateful to get it, and maybe without the celeb sham it wouldn't have happened.

[Vudak]

What exactly are you expecting them to do?  The story states they helped raise tens of millions of dollars.  It sounds like they did their bit.  

Edit - how many Joe Schmoes do you think contribute a dollar to this cause or that to get a pink, green, or yellow ribbon to wear on their lapel for a day or slap on their cubicle yet don't devote the rest of their lives to the cause?  How is that any different and why should they be expected to, anyway?

[RotBaron]

What exactly are you expecting them to do?  The story states they helped raise tens of millions of dollars.  It sounds like they did their bit.  

Edit - how many Joe Schmoes do you think contribute a dollar to this cause or that to get a pink, green, or yellow ribbon to wear on their lapel for a day or slap on their cubicle yet don't devote the rest of their lives to the cause?  How is that any different and why should they be expected to, anyway?

Something you don't understand about "in it for themselves?"  It's a popularity contest amongst them to see who can come out ahead in a disaster.

You are aware that 1,000's are still trying to recover from Sandy?

See it through. Stay dedicated, dozens of stories have been in the small headlines for months about Sandy victims still trying get a semblance of their old life back.  It's not about that though, for them it's about face time. If it bleeds, it leads, and they better have their face all over it. Again, a great some/sum, not all.

Saying to me that there is such grave need please help, and then disappear, why should they be expected to??? Really. I think I'll quit volunteering at the VA, I mean I've helped enough ppl, someone else will go and do it...

[Arlo]

Is there a picture of Rush Limbaugh holding a hammer somewhere?

[Vudak]

It stops being charity once you brag about it, period, so don't go casting stones if you're going to bring up where you volunteer.  The second you let that out of the bag it's not pure altruism, which apparently is what you expect of these celebs. 

Of course there's something in it for them...  Just like there's something in it for every corporation that donates or every individual who does so publicly.  But so what?  They raised tens of millions of dollars.  That was there role, and they did a good job.  Relief victims are better off because of them.  Who on earth are we to demand that they spend their free time and energy doing anything more?

It's a gift, and yet we the entitled public are going to give them crap over it? 

Something you don't understand about "in it for themselves?"  It's a popularity contest amongst them to see who can come out ahead in a disaster.

You are aware that 1,000's are still trying to recover from Sandy?

See it through. Stay dedicated, dozens of stories have been in the small headlines for months about Sandy victims still trying get a semblance of their old life back.  It's not about that though, for them it's about face time. If it bleeds, it leads, and they better have their face all over it. Again, a great some/sum, not all.

Saying to me that there is such grave need please help, and then disappear, why should they be expected to??? Really. I think I'll quit volunteering at the VA, I mean I've helped enough ppl, someone else will go and do it...

[rpm]

Yeah, screw the celebrities. Those charities that received the millions the celebs raised should give all the money back. Every tainted cent.

[RotBaron]

Yeah, screw the celebrities. Those charities that received the millions the celebs raised should give all the money back. Every tainted cent.

 

point went so far over your head its orbiting now

[RotBaron]

It stops being charity once you brag about it, period, so don't go casting stones if you're going to bring up where you volunteer.  The second you let that out of the bag it's not pure altruism, which apparently is what you expect of these celebs.  

Of course there's something in it for them...  Just like there's something in it for every corporation that donates or every individual who does so publicly.  But so what?  They raised tens of millions of dollars.  That was there role, and they did a good job.  Relief victims are better off because of them.  Who on earth are we to demand that they spend their free time and energy doing anything more?

It's a gift, and yet we the entitled public are going to give them crap over it?  

Don't go casting stones if I bring up where I volunteer??? WTF has that got to do with anything? Shall I not mention the two other places I do as well, for fear of losing my altruism?  My lord, if I gave a rats about who cared other than the veterans that I try to help, than you might have something there, but I don't. What I said backed up the statement  see it through. Yes there is a time to pass the torch. Celebs however do it as soon as it doesn't get them headlines; rather they drop the torch and run to the next put my face all over event.

Who is we the entitled public?  Uh ya, it's a free country, it's not North Korea, yah we can give them crap about it if anybody wants to.

[Tinkles]

Hmm.

Politics...

Sounds like ch 200

    

[mechanic]

The celebrity world is fickle because human nature is often fickle. Celebrities are a good indication of what we all want, money (comfortable living) and to be liked by people. Lets say 70% of celebrities are self serving and 30% are selfless giving human beings purely hypothetically. What we witness is a rough indication of the percentage of humans from those celebrities nations who would be self serving or selfless human beings if they all had the money and popularity. The reason why the 70% self serving group are popular to 70% of the people should therefore be quite obvious.