Andrea Mitchell, noted “journalist” decided that it was appropriate to criticize Mitt Romney’s participation in a donation drive for victims of Hurricane Sandy.
“You’ve got the image of Mitt Romney doing what, they say, is not a campaign event in the same space they were going to hold a campaign event. They say they’re making collections for hurricane and storm relief,” the MSNBC anchor said during a Tuesday broadcast of “Mitchell Reports.”
“We checked with the Red Cross. The Red Cross said, while they’re always grateful for donations, that this is not what they need or want. They always tell people, ‘please donate money, because we have our own packagers, wholesalers’ — they have their own distribution system,” she continued.
I know this may come as a shock to Ms. Mitchell, but the Red Cross is not the only charity that goes into disaster areas to offer relief. Perhaps she has never heard of The Salvation Army, Samaritan’s Purse, and any other number of religiously affiliated relief charities. Maybe she simply hasn’t considered these other charities because they are religiously affiliated. Or perhaps it hadn’t occurred to her that there might be more than one charity acting in the wake of Sandy. Or maybe she hasn’t figured out that the Red Cross can’t dictate how OTHER people’s charity gets gathered and distributed. And not all charities have to “repackage” donations. When people need food and water, you GIVE them food and water. It doesn’t have to be complicated, especially when you have already coordinated with churches in the area, and know what the needs are.
These organizations DON’T turn away donations, and many of them smaller overhead expenses that the Red Cross has. They also don’t ask for donations after disasters and then NOT use the funds raised on relief for THAT disaster, like the Red Cross did after Katrina. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against what the Red Cross does. I’m always glad when there is an alternative to government assistance, if only because there is no institutionalization of that “assistance”. But I reject the notion that they are the arbiters of what is or is not acceptable assistance.
But perhaps the most telling part about all of this is the assumption of authority, and condemnation of individuals who dare to not do what they were told to do. It is the idea that meaningful help can only be that which is regimented and organized according to the dictates of “experts”. It’s charity, for God’s sake. It is simple. It can be small. And is SHOULD start with the individual. But that doesn’t work for people who believe that we have to be controlled. Or people who believe that experts are the only ones who have opinions that matter. Or that authority must be ceded to a monolithic institution, because it is the only one qualified to have it. It doesn’t matter whether that is donating to relief efforts as the Red Cross being the only acceptable donation, or the belief that people shouldn’t be responsible for their own safety, and that as a result, only the police should be allowed to have firearms. This kind of thinking is contrary to the American Experience. Hell, if experts were to be obeyed, and were the only ones with opinions that mattered, we never would have fought against the British for our Freedom. The experts knew that the British Army was unbeatable. If the experts were the authority, we likely would have never come here, because everyone knew the world was flat. And going to the moon? Forget about it.
And yet the indoctrination must hold, which is why Marty Bashir, The World’s Most Annoying British Twit™ doubled down with this chyron “Romney Donated Goods Drive Against Red Cross Guidelines”…reinforcing the impression that individuals must not defy authority…even when that authority has been conferred by those who think they know better, or assumed by those authorities.
I guess I just don’t know who the authorities are, since I have readied a donation to the Salvation Army.