Maybe Hollywood will pony up..Just like they did after 9-11..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6781783/

I have always liked Sandra Bullock...This is great..

so an actress with too much money has donated to a cause which is currently "cool" to be associated with, and that small outay has "bought" you so she'll make it back in future movies...go USA!

myoptic. You are a true cynic. Sure she is rich. Sure her donation will not take food off her table. But to give that generously is to be praised, not met with distain.

And yes, I would prefer rich hollywood actresses that try to do something to make the world a better place over a rich hollywood actress that don't.

Way to go Sandra!

I had not heard before that she had done the same after 9/11.

then others can follow along....

YES YES YES YES.. !!!

Actress with too much money, HUH?? I believe Jerry Falwell has "too much" money. How much has he donated??

Such a moronic statement.

Personally, I have not given a dime to the TSUNAMI Victims... All my charitable donations go to the refugees in SUDAN..

I guess I am not cool, right??

Wonder how much......IF ANY......Babs Streisand has ponied up!!!

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Exactly...capitalistic greed at its finest.

Capitalism assumes greed by default...thats why it works. Everyone benefits in this example. Sandra gets publicity, the victims get aid. Who loses?

GO USA!

if these peopel want to make a donation, good for them....but why do they make that public. why not donate without having to announce it to the rest of the world.

fact is the only reason you make something like that public, is to get something back in return. she decision to donate publicly was one of ruthless oppertunisum, and benifit of the misery of others.

Perhaps she hoped to inspire others to give by lending her credibility to the cause, or to shame/motivate her peers into being similarly generous.

For example, Gary Sinise strongly supports a foundation for the Iraqi Children. Almost all celebrities lend the weight of their support to a charity that is meaningful to them because celebrity is influential in the U.S.

You didn't seem to have any problem with Bruce Springsteen campaigning for Kerry this year, Mouse, so why do you care if Sandra Bullock campaigns for people to donate to the victims of the Tsunami.

Such cynicism is really inappropriate in a time when those dollars mean the difference between millions of people living and dying. Would you prefer that she hadn't given the money?

Or, is it just that you believe she needs to conform to some arbitrary standard of morality that you'd impose on everyone else?

Why shouldn't she be recognized for doing good deeds?

Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.