Eat, Drink & Be Beneficent

Is Debaucharity the future of giving, in the 21st Century?

As we enter the time of year referred to, by many, as the holiday season, one is often put in a mind to consider those less fortunate than they. Some take this consideration one-step further making a charitable contribution to one of the many organizations setup to help those in need.

This can be a hard time for people who lack the adequate resources to care for themselves and their loved ones. People have always recognized the importance and need for charity.

In one of the earliest translations (1382-1395) of the Bible into (Middle) English, known as Wycliffe’s Bible, the 13th verse of St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians refers to the 3 Christian Graces, reading:

Nowe forsothe dwellen faith, hope, and charite, thes thre; forsoth the mooste of thes is charite.¹

The Oxford English Dictionary defines charity as ‘Love, kindness, affection, natural affection: now esp. with some notion of generous or spontaneous goodness.’

Welfare Economics speaks directly to the measurement of need, as well as the importance of determining a socially efficient outcome. (e.g. Rawlsian Social Welfare & Utilitarianism)

Forbes Magazine released a list of America’s Top Charities for 2017. The 100 largest charities take-in $46.5 billion, which is ‘one-tenth the estimated $390 billion taken in by . . . the country’s 1 million-plus non-profits.’ ’Tis the season.

Those in a giving mood are not restricted to only organizations like United Way, St. Jude Children’s Hospital, or Habitat for Humanity, many people are taking part in crowdfunding with on-line giving organizations like GoFundMe. According to their website:

In recent years, crowdfunding has transformed the traditional fundraising landscape, breaking down barriers between those in need and those available to help them-and making it possible for people to offer direct support to those who need it most. . .GoFundMe is the #1 and most trusted leader in free online fundraising. We empower people to rally support for personal, medical, and charitable causes.

It may warm the heart to know that people have so much love & care for their fellow man; that they would dig so deeply into their pockets and give, with no expectation of personal benefit other than knowing that their contribution adds to Greater Good. Oh, Wait!

Tax Deductible Donations

Apparently, the U.S. government wants to reward those individuals who find it in their power to contribute to charity. If your charitable donation is made to an organization with 501(c)(3) tax-exemption², it is tax deductible and can be used to lower your tax bill. Those interested in such benefit from their altruism should contact their accountant. Those not willing to wait that long, may read more about it here, and then contact an accountant.

So, religious obligation, the greater good, & tax benefit. That must cover all justifications for charitable giving, right?

Noblesse Oblige

The concept that one’s elevated economic state obliges them to act in an elevated manner, necessitates that privilege entails responsibility. Granted, the term, which is French, is referencing nobility, however, we can still see it at work today. (In practice, if not in the vernacular.)

From the Salvation Army website:

In 1936, William Maltby, a Captain with The Salvation Army, was standing on the corner of 52nd Street and 5th Avenue in Manhattan on a very cold winter evening. He was playing carols on his instrument at a red kettle, now an iconic part of New York City during the holidays. Jack Kriendler, part owner of the ‘21’ Club, was walking by when he came across Captain Maltby and invited him into ‘21’ to warm up with a bowl of soup. As a thank you, Captain Maltby offered to play some Christmas carols for the patrons before heading back out to the kettle.

The patrons enjoyed the carols and the holiday feeling that ensued, so a top hat made its way from the coatroom to the dining room and was passed along to collect contributions to thank The Salvation Army. Today, ‘21’ still honors this tradition every year during the week running up to Christmas . . . This year will be the 81st consecutive carol sing at ‘21’. . .

From the ‘21’ Club website:

Generations of ‘21’ guests gather each December to celebrate the holiday season and give back. The “passing of the hat” tradition that began in 1938 collects an average of $65,000 each year in donations from guests at ‘21’.

More than 8 decades of New York’s top one-tenth of one percent contributing to the fourth largest charitable organization in the United States. Not too bad.

So, the religious, the moral, the tax-savvy, & the privileged. That has to be everyone, right?

Debaucharity

One cannot help but notice that, as this list has progressed, the reward for generosity seems to have gotten more earthly.

Since 1998, people in New York City have taken part in SantaCon, ‘an annual pub crawl in which people dressed in Santa Claus costumes or as other Christmas characters parade in several cities around the world.’ For those unfamiliar with SantaCon, it is as absurd as it sounds. As a Village Voice article from 2014 states:

[I]n the last decade . . . SantaCon has become a massive hedonistic crawl. Now thousands of sloshed Kris Kringles, elves, and snowmen gather at a single meeting place at 10 a.m. on a designated day in December and stagger from bar to bar, covering the streets and sidewalks with vomit and garbage while antagonizing passersby, brawling with one another, and creating both traffic and pedestrian congestion.

However, what started as a ‘pub crawl’ has, since 2009, become a charitable event, which, according to the official SantaCon NYC website claims to have raised ‘over $400,000 for charitable causes, including City Harvest, which ’exists to end hunger in communities throughout New York City.’

SantaCon is not the only organization to use people’s tendency toward overindulgence to raise money for charity. (What I would call a Debaucharity.³)

We have seen debaucharities utilized to fund small-scale projects, on a microeconomic level, for years. (e.g. Charity Casino Fundraisers, School Bake Sales, Tagalongs) What we are seeing now, is more wide-reaching charities that benefit from people’s overindulgence/bad behavior.

Since 2013, Portland, Oregon has been home to the Oregon Public House, described by its founder, Ryan Saari, as ‘a place for you to go, spend time and unwind . . . melding . . . the altruistic and hedonistic.’ In a 2013 article titled Philanthropubs: Drinking for a cause, Saari explains that patrons at his bar choose what local charity they wish the profits from their bar tab to be donated to. He believes ‘the philanthropub is a novel way to solicit donations from beer lovers, especially in the current tenuous economic climate . . . [and] . . . wants to see the concept spread to every city.’

Whether debaucharities spread to every city or not, what is most important is that charitable giving continues. When faced with the throngs of the potentially drunken Santas or Seattleites staggering through their respective cities, one hopes the damage done will more than be off-set by the improvements in the social welfare. Hope.

Now, if you will excuse me, I must go get dressed, the Salvation Army Band Holiday Luncheon at '21' is this afternoon, and SantaCon is expected to cause congestion in midtown Manhattan. I don't want to be late.

---

1. Now dwelleth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the most of these is charity.

   Modern translations have changed charite to love.↩

2. Some organizations, such as churches, count as charitable organizations even without 501(c)(3) status. Consult an accountant.↩

3. A portmanteau of Debauchery & Charity↩

Earth's Last Best Hope for Peace

Patriotism, Nationalism, & The Destruction of Words

As I am sure everyone is now aware, at a ceremony commemorating the 100th anniversary of the ending of the First World War, French President Emmanuel Macron stated, “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By saying, ‘Our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what gives it grace and what is essential: its moral values.”

People have responded to President Macron’s comments in two quite interesting ways. The obvious response, apparently, is taking the President’s words as a verabl attack on President Trump’s America First Initiative, and his comments, at a campaign rally for Senator Ted Cruz leading-up to the U.S. midterm election:

You know what a globalist is, right? You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know what? We can’t have that. You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist. And I say, really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, OK? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist. . .Use that word.

The response that I find most interesting, (other than the President admitting that he is anti-globalization) however, is that President Macron’s comments have caused some people to rush to their dictionaries, trying to find the difference between Nationalism & Patriotism.

I have a dictionary.

---

According to the Oxford English Dictionary:

So, while they both have a support/devotion aspect, nationalism has a ‘detriment of the interests of other nations’ part.

Patriotism seems to be love your country and harm no one.

---

That was easy.

Problem solved.

No need for more discussion, right?

Grumble.

What is there to argue about? We have definitions for both of these words. Does President Trump, Floria State Senator Marco Rubio, and Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead actually support the United States ‘even to the detriment of the interests of other nations?’ Do they not understand the definition of the word? Why, in his Wall Street Journal editorial, does Senator Rubio use the word Nationalism, but talk about Patriotism? Are these two words now interchangeable? (Who decided that?) Why are We the People buying in to this?

What we are seeing is not the normal, slow, evolution of language. (Any etymologists here?) This is not the rediscovery of a word, by a new generation, even when they use it incorrectly. ( Urban Dictionary?) We are actively witnessing what Orwell referred to as the ‘destruction of words,’ in his 1948 novel 1984. (Calm down, I am not going to ‘go-off’ on Orwellian conspiracy theory, I am merely quoting.)

“It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well - better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words - in reality, only one word.

What follows is my letter to the editor, in response to Walter Russell Mead’s Wall Street Journal Opinion piece, Macron’s Faux Pas on Nationalism. The Journal chose not to print it; however, I felt it only right that I share it.

As I often say, words have meaning. I understand that the English language is an ever-evolving thing; however, we must not forget the power that our words have and never allow anyone to strip the English language (or us) of that power.