Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, N.J., has taken on the SNAP Challenge. SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), commonly known as food stamps, now reaches over 40 million Americans - about 15% of the country.
Dan Goldberg of the Star-Ledger reports: The average monthly food stamp benefit was $133.26 per person in New Jersey in fiscal year 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's a little over $33 per week, or $4 per day.
Mayor Booker will be feeding himself for the next week on only $4 per day, and he'll be tweeting about his experience the whole time. Follow his story at #SNAPChallenge or #CoryBooker.
I believe these types of headline-grabbing-challenges are hugely important. Not only do they raise awareness around issues of hunger and poverty, but for the individuals participating, they instill a deep sense of compassion and empathy.
We are fortunate to live in a country with a safety-net that, at the very least, prevents starvation. Thanks to programs like SNAP, poor Americans deal with a very different kind of hunger than the poor in the developing world, where death from starvation or malnutrition are very real threats.
Mayor Booker will be living below a comparatively comfortable poverty line. Even more difficult is to live below the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (and yes, that $1.25 per day = the purchasing power of $1.25 in the US).
If you'd like to take on the SNAP Challenge yourself, there's a handy-dandy toolkit to get you up and running. You can also find a lengthy history of food stamps in the USA here.
If you'd like to take on a tougher challenge - 5 days on $1.25 per day - head over to Live Below the Line to pre-register for the 2013 challenge.
-Selfish Blogger
Showing posts with label empathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label empathy. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Your chance at fame has arrived
A photo of a New York police officer giving boots to a homeless man has gone viral. The New York Times reports that while on duty, Officer Lawrence Deprimo spotted a man in the cold without shoes. Deprimo talked with the man, found out his shoe size, and left to purchase a $100 pair of boots in a nearby store. He returned and helped the man put on his new boots. Now that's a good police officer! A tourist snapped the now famous photo of the scene. It reminded her of her father, a police officer who she witnessed giving food to a homeless man when she was a child.
This touching story immediately reminded me of someone too: my compassionate friend Leanne. She keeps her car stocked with bottled water and granola bars, so any time she drives past someone on the side of the road holding a sign that says "hungry" she is in a position to help. Any day now, someone will snap a picture of Leanne's good deeds and she will be just as famous as Officer Deprimo!
I think the kind-hearted acts of police officers like Lawrence Deprimo and that tourist's dad and people like Leanne are so moving to me because they seem rare. I hope that acts like these become so common that their note-worthiness falls somewhere between folding laundry and serving cake at a birthday party.
But until that time comes, YOU have an unprecedented opportunity to achieve viral internet fame!! Your next act of compassion could be the next Gangnam Style. Or "Call Me Maybe" might be a better analogy. Anyway, what I'm saying is, compassion is hot right now, so take advantage of the moment and up your charity game. Keep an eye out for lost animals, be alert to signs of domestic violence and human trafficking, and pay attention the next time you see someone living on the street who needs help. Follow through on every do-gooder moment that presents itself, even if the only help you can give is very small. Officer Deprimo is famous for buying a pair of boots. Whatever, you can top that no sweat. Better get to it. Can't let this chance at fame pass me by.
-Selfish Blogger
This touching story immediately reminded me of someone too: my compassionate friend Leanne. She keeps her car stocked with bottled water and granola bars, so any time she drives past someone on the side of the road holding a sign that says "hungry" she is in a position to help. Any day now, someone will snap a picture of Leanne's good deeds and she will be just as famous as Officer Deprimo!
I think the kind-hearted acts of police officers like Lawrence Deprimo and that tourist's dad and people like Leanne are so moving to me because they seem rare. I hope that acts like these become so common that their note-worthiness falls somewhere between folding laundry and serving cake at a birthday party.
But until that time comes, YOU have an unprecedented opportunity to achieve viral internet fame!! Your next act of compassion could be the next Gangnam Style. Or "Call Me Maybe" might be a better analogy. Anyway, what I'm saying is, compassion is hot right now, so take advantage of the moment and up your charity game. Keep an eye out for lost animals, be alert to signs of domestic violence and human trafficking, and pay attention the next time you see someone living on the street who needs help. Follow through on every do-gooder moment that presents itself, even if the only help you can give is very small. Officer Deprimo is famous for buying a pair of boots. Whatever, you can top that no sweat. Better get to it. Can't let this chance at fame pass me by.
-Selfish Blogger
Monday, November 26, 2012
Never Be Silent
I recently had a chance to visit some folks I had not seen in four years. They live on a quiet street in a three bedroom mobile home that houses three children, eight teens/adults, four dogs, three cats, and two turtles. Seven people in the home are of working age. Two are unable to work due to physical condition. One is employed. When we arrived to visit the 3 year old and 4 year old kids, we saw the largest of the four dogs in a crate. He had sad, defeated eyes. He had been bad, we were told. I suspected he had not been taken on a walk in a long time.
We took the kids to the park. There, I talked with the kids about their dog.
"Does doggie go on walks?"
"No."
"Do you think he's bored?"
"Yes."
"Do you think he was bad because he doesn't have the words to say he's bored?"
"Yes."
"When we get home, do you want to take doggie on a walk?"
"YEAH!!!!"
I was worried doggie might not have a leash, but he did. When we arrived back at the house, the kids asked the adults if we could take doggie on a walk. He's bad on the leash, I was told. I promised to hold his leash myself. We grabbed a plastic bag to clean up after doggie, and off we ran! I went into a full sprint but couldn't keep up. He pulled me up and down the block for nearly an hour. I used all my strength to keep my hold on the leash. The kids watched doggie blast past them and cheered. Doggie was elated! No one had ever seen doggie panting before.
The 3 year old boy wanted to run with doggie too, so we held the leash together and doggie and I slowed our pace significantly. I asked the little boy:
"When you grow up, are you going to be a good runner?"
"Yeah."
"Are you going to take your doggies on runs?"
"Yeah!"
"Are you going to take your doggies on runs everyday!?"
"YEAH!"
"Good for you! Doggies need to go on runs everyday to be happy!"
After our short outing, we brought doggie in and we proclaimed to the room how much doggie loved going on walks!
I left for the airport to head home.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched a new campaign this year called "Never Be Silent." It is an inspiring campaign that calls on us to say something whenever we see abuse or exploitation of animals. It seems like a simple enough request, but it is exceedingly difficult. Will I say the right thing? What if I make it worse? Am I being a rude guest? Will I damage a relationship?
I have had a few opportunities to "Never Be Silent" this year, and I have not been able to rise to the challenge. In this case, I didn't say much of anything to the adults. I didn't know what to say, or how it would go over. But I did manage to talk to the two children. And I feel like that was a very important first step for me. And at the very least, doggie had one moment of sheer joy instead of one more hour of endless boredom in a dark, crowded house.
Everyday, we are faced with instances of injustice and cruelty. And we get to decide how we will respond. Will you be silent, paralyzed by fear or social convention, and do nothing? Or will you say something, however small and imperfect that "something" might be? I want to become a person who responds effectively where ever I find injustice and cruelty. My guess is I will never become that person like I have arrived at a destination. I suspect I will have to continue becoming that person is a lifelong pursuit that is honed and crafted over time.
My response was not perfect, but it was better than no response. Because I couldn't find the courage to politely talk with the adults, I left the animals to count on two preschoolers. I hope they can rise to the challenge where I did not.
-Selfish Blogger
We took the kids to the park. There, I talked with the kids about their dog.
"Does doggie go on walks?"
"No."
"Do you think he's bored?"
"Yes."
"Do you think he was bad because he doesn't have the words to say he's bored?"
"Yes."
"When we get home, do you want to take doggie on a walk?"
"YEAH!!!!"
I was worried doggie might not have a leash, but he did. When we arrived back at the house, the kids asked the adults if we could take doggie on a walk. He's bad on the leash, I was told. I promised to hold his leash myself. We grabbed a plastic bag to clean up after doggie, and off we ran! I went into a full sprint but couldn't keep up. He pulled me up and down the block for nearly an hour. I used all my strength to keep my hold on the leash. The kids watched doggie blast past them and cheered. Doggie was elated! No one had ever seen doggie panting before.
The 3 year old boy wanted to run with doggie too, so we held the leash together and doggie and I slowed our pace significantly. I asked the little boy:
"When you grow up, are you going to be a good runner?"
"Yeah."
"Are you going to take your doggies on runs?"
"Yeah!"
"Are you going to take your doggies on runs everyday!?"
"YEAH!"
"Good for you! Doggies need to go on runs everyday to be happy!"
After our short outing, we brought doggie in and we proclaimed to the room how much doggie loved going on walks!
I left for the airport to head home.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched a new campaign this year called "Never Be Silent." It is an inspiring campaign that calls on us to say something whenever we see abuse or exploitation of animals. It seems like a simple enough request, but it is exceedingly difficult. Will I say the right thing? What if I make it worse? Am I being a rude guest? Will I damage a relationship?
I have had a few opportunities to "Never Be Silent" this year, and I have not been able to rise to the challenge. In this case, I didn't say much of anything to the adults. I didn't know what to say, or how it would go over. But I did manage to talk to the two children. And I feel like that was a very important first step for me. And at the very least, doggie had one moment of sheer joy instead of one more hour of endless boredom in a dark, crowded house.
Everyday, we are faced with instances of injustice and cruelty. And we get to decide how we will respond. Will you be silent, paralyzed by fear or social convention, and do nothing? Or will you say something, however small and imperfect that "something" might be? I want to become a person who responds effectively where ever I find injustice and cruelty. My guess is I will never become that person like I have arrived at a destination. I suspect I will have to continue becoming that person is a lifelong pursuit that is honed and crafted over time.
My response was not perfect, but it was better than no response. Because I couldn't find the courage to politely talk with the adults, I left the animals to count on two preschoolers. I hope they can rise to the challenge where I did not.
-Selfish Blogger
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Pathological Altruism - When Does Caring Go Too Far?: A Lecture with Barbara Oakley
On Sunday April 17th I attended a lecture in the Feed Your Brain series at the Center for Inquiry in Hollywood. Dr. Barbara Oakley was speaking about her soon-to-be-release book titled "Pathological Altruism", clearly a topic that would be of interest to me. I plan to read her book, which I suspect will be quite good, but I took issue with her talk.
I expected to lecture to be filled with examples of people who do good to the point of hurting themselves: seniors who give away their entire savings to do "God's work"; parents' whose lives are consumed trying to "save" a child who won't get a job; animal rescuers who see too many dogs without homes, and so adopt them all, but provide good care to none. Instead, the lecture contained examples of people who feel concern for another based on bad information. The opening example she used was the story of a woman who has been horrifically tortured by her husband and then killed him in self-defense. Once Dr Oakley delved deeper into the story, we discovered that the woman had not been abused at all, was having an affair, and planned her husband's murder over a long period of time. Dr. Oakley labeled our initial pity for the woman as "pathological altruism."
To me, there was nothing pathological about the audience's feelings. It is normal and healthy to feel for a victim. Once we learned that she was not, in fact, a victim, the audience withdrew their feelings for her. What is pathological about that? I support the main messages of her lecture: use rationality and skepticism before become emotionally invested in a person or a cause; empathy may not always be good and we should study it. But I thought her definition of what counted as pathological altruism was lacking. She defined it as someone who is empathetic to the detriment of themselves and/or others. So under her definition, someone who gives to a charity that later turns out to be a scam is a pathological altruist (her example). I disagree. I don't think it is enough to do harm out of empathy to warrant the "pathological" label. Rather, you have to know you are doing harm and continue to do it before you can call it pathological. I would add to her definition: someone who is empathetic to the detriment of themselves and/or others and has access to information that demonstrates the harm and chooses to continue the behavior. In my definition, the person who gives to a phony charity, but cuts off their gifts when the scam is revealed is not a pathological altruist. The person who continues to give even after the scam is revealed would be.
I'm sure some people see this blog as evidence of my own altruistic pathology. But I really have to disagree. I just had a $50 box of organic produce delivered to my front door. I'm sitting in my warm bed, on my foam mattress, under my expensive faux-feather comforter, typing on my relatively new MacBook, setting my iPhone4 to wake me so I can choose an outfit from my extensive wardrobe and go into my office job in the morning. I live a life of sheer luxury because I was lucky enough to be born white, to middle class parents, in an area with excellent public schools and health care. There is little reason to believe that I deserve this lifestyle more than a girl who, because of chance, was born black, to impoverished parents, in an area with no schools to teach her to read and no clinics to treat her debilitating illness or injury. I owe most of what I have to a lucky birth location.
I gave just over 1% of my lucky income to people living in unlucky poverty last year - what Peter Singer asks each of us to do to help eliminate world poverty. I don't see any kind of pathology in giving at least 1% toward a future in which birth location has little weight on success. But I do see pathology - a moral disease - in a society that has the means to do so much good for so many, but decides to spend almost every extra dollar on leisure and things.
Remember Singer's figure that for $125 billion we could cut world poverty in half, and American's spend $116 billion booze each year? That's moral pathology.
-Selfish Blogger
I expected to lecture to be filled with examples of people who do good to the point of hurting themselves: seniors who give away their entire savings to do "God's work"; parents' whose lives are consumed trying to "save" a child who won't get a job; animal rescuers who see too many dogs without homes, and so adopt them all, but provide good care to none. Instead, the lecture contained examples of people who feel concern for another based on bad information. The opening example she used was the story of a woman who has been horrifically tortured by her husband and then killed him in self-defense. Once Dr Oakley delved deeper into the story, we discovered that the woman had not been abused at all, was having an affair, and planned her husband's murder over a long period of time. Dr. Oakley labeled our initial pity for the woman as "pathological altruism."
To me, there was nothing pathological about the audience's feelings. It is normal and healthy to feel for a victim. Once we learned that she was not, in fact, a victim, the audience withdrew their feelings for her. What is pathological about that? I support the main messages of her lecture: use rationality and skepticism before become emotionally invested in a person or a cause; empathy may not always be good and we should study it. But I thought her definition of what counted as pathological altruism was lacking. She defined it as someone who is empathetic to the detriment of themselves and/or others. So under her definition, someone who gives to a charity that later turns out to be a scam is a pathological altruist (her example). I disagree. I don't think it is enough to do harm out of empathy to warrant the "pathological" label. Rather, you have to know you are doing harm and continue to do it before you can call it pathological. I would add to her definition: someone who is empathetic to the detriment of themselves and/or others and has access to information that demonstrates the harm and chooses to continue the behavior. In my definition, the person who gives to a phony charity, but cuts off their gifts when the scam is revealed is not a pathological altruist. The person who continues to give even after the scam is revealed would be.
I'm sure some people see this blog as evidence of my own altruistic pathology. But I really have to disagree. I just had a $50 box of organic produce delivered to my front door. I'm sitting in my warm bed, on my foam mattress, under my expensive faux-feather comforter, typing on my relatively new MacBook, setting my iPhone4 to wake me so I can choose an outfit from my extensive wardrobe and go into my office job in the morning. I live a life of sheer luxury because I was lucky enough to be born white, to middle class parents, in an area with excellent public schools and health care. There is little reason to believe that I deserve this lifestyle more than a girl who, because of chance, was born black, to impoverished parents, in an area with no schools to teach her to read and no clinics to treat her debilitating illness or injury. I owe most of what I have to a lucky birth location.
I gave just over 1% of my lucky income to people living in unlucky poverty last year - what Peter Singer asks each of us to do to help eliminate world poverty. I don't see any kind of pathology in giving at least 1% toward a future in which birth location has little weight on success. But I do see pathology - a moral disease - in a society that has the means to do so much good for so many, but decides to spend almost every extra dollar on leisure and things.
Remember Singer's figure that for $125 billion we could cut world poverty in half, and American's spend $116 billion booze each year? That's moral pathology.
-Selfish Blogger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)