As for quality of food- I’m sure it varies considerably. I’ve mainly worked at the holiday meals (Thanksgiving) which have been quite good. I also did a stint in Gainesville FL at one which was literally a soup kitchen because soup can be made quite inexpensively while providing nutrition and good taste- and the aroma was so good it used to make me hungry!

I like my church’s welfare program. People essentially do what work they can (getting job training in many cases) in exchange to be able to pick up whatever they need at the storehouse.

One things for sure, even the poorest among us here are rich compared to the norm in some other nations.

CStanley, I would see your point except that of all of the charity that could be abused, I would think a soup kitchen would be last place that would happen. Fortunately I’ve never had to eat at one (and I’m ashamed to admit I’ve never volunteered at one), but I imagine the food is not exactly gourmet. I don’t know why anyone who wasn’t poor would go there just for a free bowl of soup or whatever they are serving. So I think it’s a pretty safe policy to say that whoever wants to eat at a soup kitchen is welcome. You might have a point that some charitable causes are abused, but making a big deal about this guy with a cell phone is not helping to make the case. It is, in fact, hurting the case.

“I think it’s also telling that the liberal commenters see absolutely no room for pointing out that charitable assistance (or likewise, govt assistance) is susceptible to abuse”

Mostly because there is zero evidence of “abuse” in this case. Show me that evidence and I’ll be happy to join in the outcry. Absent such evidence, it seems to me that the outrage I’m feeling towards idiots like the original blogger and the ones who have taken up this cause is quite justified.

Sure, ask questions all you want, but that’s not what’s being done here — not by Malcolm, not by Malkin or Lopez, and not by van der Galien.

I also don’t like to presume anything about people who present themselves for meal assistance, particularly if this was a private charity there should not be means testing. It would definitely be absurd, and would strip people of dignity, to criticize if they’re clothing seems too nice, or if they’re driving a decent vehicle, etc. One can’t always know the whole story behind each person’s needs.

However, just as the more liberal commenters feel that the reactions to this photo have provoked a heartless response from conservatives, I think it’s also telling that the liberal commenters see absolutely no room for pointing out that charitable assistance (or likewise, govt assistance) is susceptible to abuse, and that they seem to feel that anyone who points that out is being cruel. Unfortunately though like everything else, charitable funds are not limitless so when people do take advantage without having a sincere need, they are taking away a subsistence from another person who is truly in need. There should be room for calling people out to some degree, even if it wasn’t warranted in this case.

In other words, if we can’t ask questions at all, then there will be rampant abuse and that fraudulent use of charitable funds will hurt the people that need help the most.

Do you realize that there are programs all around the country by cell-phone service providers, that provide the poor with these devices?

What the heck is the matter with you people? Michael — assuming the guy is even homeless (an assumption I find a bit risky) — no doubt you’d prefer that he eat the electronics contained therein or something?

I grew up in inner city Detroit, Michigan (USA). All kinds of wares are peddled for insanely low prices. This guy could have picked this phone up for 50 cents.

First Lady Michelle Obama did a good thing. Enough!