What’s The Good of a Charitable Enterprise if You Can’t Pervert it to Score Political Points?

Politics & Current Events

Michelle Malkin has been promoting a charity that donates voice-activated laptops to disabled soldiers. Good for her.

Sort of.

See, her effort started well. But soon in her updates, Michelle’s primary purpose morphed into one of using the charitable drive as a weapon to pummel “left-wing bloggers.” First she said she’d donate $25 for the first ten “left-wing bloggers” who signed up to donate, instructing them to email her. She did not define “left-wing bloggers.” One presumes she knows one when she sees one. Perhaps there is a litmus test — failure to support War in Iraq, failure to react hysterically when the sort of brownish person in coach on the Southwest flight to Oakland says something about Allah or possibly Olive or Altmont, failure to accord her the level of respect and adulation and affirmation that she so clearly needs like a glutton needs his lunch.

Now, sneers she, “where are the liberal blogs?” It wasn’t enough to merely assume she’d hear about it if a lefty donated, by the way. She has an insider in the charity to help her police the lefty blogs:

Soldiers’ Angels webmaster Holly Aho says she has been on the lookout for any left-wing Project Valour-IT members and would give me a heads-up if any signed up. So far, to our knowledge, none have.

Now, in principle this sounds like an excellent charity. I firmly believe that when we send soldiers into danger, we owe them a debt of honor obligating us to provide them with the best training, equipment, and leadership humanly possible, and that when they come home wounded, we owe them a level of care nothing short of lavish. The GOVERNMENT should be giving the damned voice-activated laptops to soldiers who can’t use regular laptops because they were too badly injured fighting at the command of said government. Unfortunately, this government, for which Malkin so frequently is a shrill shill, feels that such care costs an awful lot and that it falls into the category of tax-and-spend liberalism (unlike paying for endeavors which result in such injuries in the first place) and that veteran care facilities should be merely “adequate”, in the sense of “not visibly cockroach-infested at the precise moment that the NBC cameras are running.”

But I’m really not inclined to donate to a charity when its fundraising arm is pimping itself out as the crude tool of political hackery. That’s a regrettable choice by them, and I hope that in the long term the deserving charity is not tainted by the association. Nor can I imagine why anyone would jump through a hoop simply because Malkin mockingly waves it. There are many, many deserving charities out there of every stripe, and the thought that anyone, right or left, should feel the need to prove themselves to the likes of Malkin is laughable. Malkin’s motive is not charitable in any meaningful sense of the word — it’s petty and pathetic, a corruption of the charitable impulse, like lighting a candle in the cathedral to pray that someone will die.

The Bible tells us that charity is the greatest of hope, faith, love, and charity; Twain cynically remarks that, with hate, revenge, magnanimity, and humanity, it serves our need to secure self-approval. It is sad to see Twain’s view of it hit closer to the mark with Malkin than the Bible’s.

Last 5 posts by Ken

29 Comments

29 Comments

  1. Cliff  •  Nov 4, 2007 @9:36 am

    Malkin also doesn’t provide us an e-mail in her challenge, nor was I able to register on her blog so I could publicly state my liberal blogger bona fides and pledge.

    I think I may dislike Malkin more than my psyche is used to. She’s not just mean, and loud, she ain’t too bright.

    The only reason I can think of that her husband doesn’t beat her, is the law she would bring crashing down upon his head.

    But she certainly pushes the edge of the concept that men shouldn’t hit women under any condition.

  2. FbL  •  Nov 4, 2007 @11:38 am

    But I’m really not inclined to donate to a charity when its fundraising arm is pimping itself out as the crude tool of political hackery. That’s a regrettable choice by them, and I hope that in the long term the deserving charity is not tainted by the association.

    As a co-founder of the project (but not the charity that oversees it), I can tell you we are strictly non-partisan and “pimp” ourselves out to no one but donors of all stripes who desire to assist the wounded.

    When Malkin joined the current fundraising blog competition, she came up with the “challenge” idea on her own. Since finding someone who fits her description (left/liberal bloggers who BLOG IN SUPPORT OF–not necessarily DONATE to–Valour-IT) benefits us by increasing donations, we are happy to help lighten her wallet by identifying for her the “liberal” bloggers who sign up for the competition and blog about Valour-IT. ;)

    In fact, we have had a number of self-described liberal bloggers donate to Valour-IT over the years, but they are not comfortable publicizing their association (I’m sure there are even more than we are aware of, as donors usually don’t email us to “out” their blogging personas or comment on their personal politics). Their reasons for doing so are quite defensible, but very sad. So, we still await a self-described liberal blogger who will blog IN SUPPORT OF Valour-IT.

  3. Maggie  •  Nov 4, 2007 @11:56 am

    Whether or not the government should provide the laptops isn’t the point. The fact is that they don’t. Even if they decided to, it would take years to get rolling. These laptops are needed now. This is a very good charity. All funds donated go directly into purchasing laptops. All overhead is covered by Soldier’s Angels. It’s run by people who work hard and care very much.

    Don’t get distracted by Michelle. It’s like debating whether a really good charity should use candy as a fundraiser because sugar is bad for kids. The point here is Valor-IT and getting as much money as possible to accomplish their goal. Michelle is just putting herself out there to generate talk. It worked didn’t it? Agree or disagree with her, she is very media savvy. Some of us write long serious posts on Valor-IT and some of us try to be funny. Heck, at my blog I am up for bid if you donate to Valor-IT. Whatever gets a few bucks thrown in the pot.

    Holly Aho is not “policing lefty blogs”. She is just the person who knows who gives/does what. You and I both know that if Michelle doesn’t define “left wing blog” we can do it for ourselves. I don’t know why that part causes such a stir. If you read mine, you’d see clearly that I am right wing. I have no problem with that. I was a “Goldwater Girl” lol. Everyone has labels.

    You can disagree with the war. You can be very vocal about it. That’s the American way. But please don’t paint Holly to be anything other than what she is. She works very hard on helping Valor-IT. She is not trying to advance a political agenda.

    I’ve only read this one post here at your place. Are you a left wing blogger? If you are, consider signing up. You write yourself that it seems like a worthy cause. I would be happy to send you any info you need or answer any question (or put you in touch with someone who has the answer).

    Oh, and this is incredibly pushy of me………but if you did donate/sign up…….can you do Team Navy? LOL I’m a Navy girl.

  4. Ken  •  Nov 4, 2007 @12:33 pm

    1. Cliff: Yeah, thanks. Wife-beating jokes are just hilarious. Are you a troll posing as a liberal to make liberals look bad? Or is your ear for humor just that off? Good God. Can I expect you to follow up with some racial jokes?

    2. FbL: I admire your charitable work but stand by my characterization, blunt as it was. There can be donation challenges made in good faith and the spirit of charity. This one, like just about every other reference to the Left by Malkin, is snide and mean-spirited. It bothers me that someone within the fundraising arm is feeding her information to help her twist the spirit of charity to her political agenda. Check out the comments on her thread and tell me that isn’t precisely the reaction she is looking for.

    I think the charity is great. I think the choice to associate it with Malkin, given how she will use that association, is terrible.

    3. Maggie: I respectfully disagree. In this context, whether the government provides the laptops IS part of the point. This is not just a situation where the charity approached someone and they refused to donate on principle because the government should be covering this need. This is a situation where a right-wing blogger, who supports an administration that does not provide adequately for veterans and who is fond of tax-and-spend rhetoric, is using the charity as a political tool. It is completely on topic to point out that Malkin’s invocation of the charity is deeply disingenuous. Note also her comments, where the very notion that the government should be doing this is ridiculed.

    And, as I said above, I stand by my harsh characterization of anyone within the charity who assists her in using the charitable urge to blast her political opponents.

    To answer your question, I wouldn’t consider myself a left-wing or right-wing blogger. You might draw one conclusion or the other based on political posts from my defunct former blog. I call it like I see it on both sides. But I don’t plan on donating to this charity because of this issue. I will continue to send my charitable donations and time elsewhere.

  5. FbL  •  Nov 4, 2007 @12:43 pm

    http://soldiersangels.org/index.php?page=fundraiser

    It bothers me that someone within the fundraising arm is feeding her information to help her twist the spirit of charity to her political agenda.

    I’m sorry that I cannot change your mind. We are not feeding her any information that isn’t publicly available here (scroll down). Sign up is automatic, and there is no “approval process,” though we do check to see that people who have signed up actually post about Valour-IT.

    But I don’t plan on donating to this charity because of this issue. I will continue to send my charitable donations and time elsewhere.

    I’m sorry to hear that, but I appreciate your polite candor. I’m also disappointed that you would judge a charity not by what it does, but who donates to it or champions it.

    P.S. Cliff is sadly very much a “liberal” blogger and not a troll.

  6. FbL  •  Nov 4, 2007 @12:46 pm

    Oops. Hit “submit” too soon. That link at the top shows the list of ALL blogs who have signed up and posted in support of Valour-IT. I was going to add the HTML in the proper place, but forgot it was up there. Sorry.

  7. Ken  •  Nov 4, 2007 @12:51 pm

    FbL — I could argue with you for a while, using analogies, as to why I think this is different than merely judging a charity by who supports it, but I’m satisfied to leave our disagreement there. Even though I disagree strongly with this particular decision, I wish the charity the best of success.

  8. Maggie  •  Nov 4, 2007 @1:01 pm

    Ken – Thanks for the response. Your money you choice. I just figure there no harm in asking.

    Making Valor-IT answer for Michelle’s words/actions is like asking the Democratic Party to answer for Sean Penn or Michael Moore. It’s unfortunate that for some people this fine charity is overshadowed by this tempest in a teapot.

    FbL is the real deal and like Holly works very hard. Again, I think you are being too harsh with Holly. Her participation in this is merely that of someone keeping the books and “policing” all the blogs. She verifies that the person who signed up is really the blogger and that they have properly publicized the cause at their blog. You know anytime something like this is on the ‘Net, someone takes the chance to mess with it. Some people have tried to sign up blogs that aren’t theirs. If a liberal blogger were to sign on to take up the challenge, I would think they would want Holly or someone at Valor-IT to be there to verify.

    As far as the government paying for the laptops, you point out that some of Michelle’s commenters ridicule the idea. I missed the ridicule, but I know plenty who disagree with the premise. Some people simply believe the government shouldn’t pay for everything, some think the government shouldn’t pay for anything. There is a whole spectrum of thought on government spending and there are thoughtful (and foolish) arguements at every point. Again, my only point is, for today the need must be met through charitable giving. That’s my focus.

    I appreciate your time. It’s been a very polite discourse.

  9. J.B.  •  Nov 4, 2007 @1:17 pm

    Listen to yourself: “I wish the charity the best of success.”

    But you won’t do a thing to help. Congratulations, you’re proving Malkin’s point.

  10. Ken  •  Nov 4, 2007 @1:51 pm

    J.B. –

    Shall I post a list of twenty veteran-related charities and interrogate you as to how much you have given to each one, and why not if not?

    Are you expecting me to post my 2006 1040? Check and credit card receipts? Not likely. I’m satisfied with my charitable giving and time donations and don’t need to justify them to the likes of you. No one should feel the obligation to be Malkin’s monkey. The notion that someone is uncharitable because they won’t donate to a single charity highlighted (in bad faith) by a blogger is self-evidently ludicrous.

  11. Maggie  •  Nov 4, 2007 @1:53 pm

    Ken – On your points about J.B. – concur.

  12. CDR Salamander  •  Nov 4, 2007 @1:59 pm

    As someone who has spent the better part of two decades dealing with gov’munt sponsored health-care and IT support – the last thing these men and women need is the gov’munt to supply them with a NMCI like laptop and associated material.

    Valour IT is about a Left/Right-neutral as you can get. Is MM trying to make a point? Sure, that is her nature – but don’t smear Valour IT as some tool simply because Aho answered an email. Heck, email her yourself – I bet she will answer you as well.

  13. Cliff  •  Nov 4, 2007 @3:43 pm

    Hey Ken,

    Thanks for the unsolicited admonition and your perfect clarity on all things.

    I wish I were you, except WITH a sense of humor.

    When DID you stop beating your wife?

  14. Ken  •  Nov 4, 2007 @3:54 pm

    So, if you post a comment to a post on somebody else’s blog, a response to it is “unsolicited?’

    OK, THAT was funny.

  15. Brian  •  Nov 5, 2007 @8:04 am

    See, it’s things like this that stop me from blogging here. Here is Ken, ruffling the feathers of charitable organization with real commentary on real issues. And all I can do is complain about my crummy neighbors and the dumb things they do?

  16. Ken  •  Nov 5, 2007 @8:42 am

    Brian, comic relief is a perfectly respectable calling. Who doesn’t like the gravediggers in Hamlet? ;)

  17. Maggie  •  Nov 5, 2007 @9:01 am

    Brian – I’m on your side. My blog is 98% nonsense.

  18. Ezra  •  Nov 5, 2007 @9:59 am

    I’m liberal, and I’m an intermittent blogger, but something tells me I wouldn’t satisfy Malkin’s criteria. I agree with Ken that grandstanding in a “give to my charity or else” sort of way is as distasteful as anything else Mlakin does. Working for a non-profit myself, I am keenly aware of the tightrope any sort of celebrity endorsement (whether requested or not) forces an organization to walk. We had Ann Richards speak at one of our meetings, and some of our doctors were vocally upset, seeing her as a political spokesperson (despite the fact that she was talking about her diseases, and how well the nice Pharma company that paid her way treated them.) We lost member’s because they saw Governor Richards as a spokesperson for our organization. You run the same risk if you have someone like Michelle Malkin fronting for you (again, whether requested or not..)

  19. FbL  •  Nov 5, 2007 @11:51 am

    Thank you for the advice, Ezra. Please allow me to point out that Malkin is not asking people to donate from a political perspective, but simply challenging them to blog in support of it. We’ve always had people from across the political spectrum donating to Valour-IT, but the number blogging about it from the left has historically been rather small. Part of that is a function of having been born on the milblogs, which as a whole lean strongly conservative (though not always on social issues), and so the percentages are going to be on the conservative side simply because of community connectedness.

    In past years smaller bloggers among us have actively reached out to the liberal bloggers we know, but with extremely limited success. So far this year, I’ve found five liberal bloggers supporting Valour-IT, which is an exciting increase. :)

    Anyway, I appreciate the respectful discussion here, and just wanted to clarify that the challenge is textual, not financial.

  20. FbL  •  Nov 5, 2007 @11:53 am

    Ezra,

    One more thing: I can’t figure out how to get to your blog, but I’d love to take a look. I haven’t yet heard from Malkin herself, but her commenters who put down their own challenges are starting to pay up. So, if you’re sincerely interested in blogging about Valour-IT, I’d love to add your name to the list. :)

  21. Ezra  •  Nov 5, 2007 @12:09 pm

    Actually, I’m one of the many facets of Ken’s personality. I just blog here. Ken’s a big believer in affirmative action, so he needed a Jew.

    Can I challenge conservative bloggers to blog positively about warchild (www.warchild.org.uk) a group raising money to try and help some of the kids that happened to get in the way of the bombs we are surgically dropping on insurgents? Something tells me that would not be a respectful discussion. Especially if we got say Michael Moore to make the challenge.

  22. Ken  •  Nov 5, 2007 @12:14 pm

    Are those kids terrorists, or people who might grow up to be terrorists if they live to adulthood?

  23. Maggie  •  Nov 5, 2007 @1:31 pm

    Ezra – the challenge was to blog about Valor-IT. So I will offer the same in kind once I have read enough about it. I wouldn’t want to get tied up with anything political, so I will need to look into it. Valor-IT is completely non-partisan. Blogging, supporting, donating to Valor-IT does not endorse or condemn the war. I would have to be sure that WarChild.org is the same.

    You have a point about the “give to my charity or else”. We have gotten a little carried away amongst ourselves. Springbored’s Springboard has the widget up on his site with the admonition “So BostonMaggie Won’t Hurt Us…Pony Up For Valor-IT!”. We all think it’s funny but I can see how someone else wouldn’t see the humor.

    I freely admit to having no idea how to raise money for charity. I am terribly self-centered and heartless and this is my first experience. So thanks for the advice and benefit of your experience.

  24. Ken  •  Nov 5, 2007 @2:03 pm

    It occurs to me that I have failed to explore the religious implications of Michelle’s call to action.

    What would Jesus say? I’m not sure. But here is how Matthew 6:1 quotes Him: “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

    2″ So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

    Now, I grant you, Jesus doesn’t explicitly say that you shouldn’t use charity to shame people. I leave it to the imagination of the reader whether that is a subtext.

  25. Ezra  •  Nov 5, 2007 @2:50 pm

    Actually, from your financial statements (from the website FBL linked above) I’d say y’all are doing ok. It’s very important that you not let the enormity of your goal blind you to your accomplishments. You aren’t going to give every single soldier a laptop, but celebrate the one’s you do help. In the non-profit world, it can be very hard to see the forest for the trees.

    One of my largest pet peeves is how down right un-Christian so many of these professed religious right folks are. How come we always have to point out “Islam is a religion of peace” but we never seem to have give Christianity the same disclaimer. Apparently only Muslims can warp their religion to insane ends. Christians would never do that. Nope. No sirree.

  26. ImJohnGalt  •  Nov 5, 2007 @9:55 pm

    Followed a trackback from Malkin’s back here to see what was going on here (I lurk at Balloon-Juice).

    Maggie/FbL, in the same way that the Republicans have politicized *everything* [DoJ, NASA, Climate Change], Malkin will use whatever the outcome is here to aggrandize herself – she won’t be able to help herself.

    If liberal blogs take up her challenge overtly, she’ll crow at how she shamed some dirty libs into donating to the troops, which they would otherwise *never* do [regardless of your prior assertion that some have donated, anonymously]. If they donate anonymously and don’t tell Malkin, she’ll use it as evidence that “The Left” doesn’t give a shit about wounded soldiers, their efforts to increase funding for the returning wounded (defeated by the Republicans, by the way) notwithstanding.

    It’s a fool’s game. It’s *really* unfortunate that your charity is caught in the crossfire, but her motives are *never* unselfish. I think that’s what people are reacting to. As I mentioned at Balloon-Juice, FbL playing along with that just rubs people who are already accused by Malkin’s ilk of “hating the troops” the wrong way.

    Look at the bright side, at least you’ll have the 101st Fighting Keyboarders full-throated support, and to hear them talk, they support the troops more than *anyone* [up to $250.00].

  27. Maggie  •  Nov 5, 2007 @10:44 pm

    Ezra – I’d like to address the first paragraph because I don’t debate religion.

    I just want to be sure I’m reading this correctly. Because we can’t get a laptop to every wounded soldier we should lighten up and not try so hard? LOL

    Now that’s not exactly the spirit, is it? I think we’ll keep FbL’s shoulder to the wheel and nose to the grindstone, thank you very much!

  28. Ezra  •  Nov 6, 2007 @9:57 am

    Actually, that is exactly what I am suggesting (although, nowhere did I say to not try so hard..) In my experience, it’s really easy to get depressed about how little you are actually able to do in the non-profit world. That’s why we make a point of celebrating little wins. The big wins come by infrequently, and even when one does, there is still so much more that needs to be done. It can become a really demoralizing grind. It’s important to take the time to recognize the good you are doing. Appreciate the people you help, don’t regret the one’s you haven’t helped.

  29. Maggie  •  Nov 6, 2007 @12:23 pm

    Ezra – I was kidding, that’s why I said we’d keep FbL working hard….not me.

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>