Imagining what event(s) would warrant me leaving my home and the only choices being relocate remote or go to a public shelter, I would head for the hills. If things are so bad that I need to seriously consider giving up my abode and not being able to stay somewhere else nearby but private, then a shelter is probably no improvement. Likely by that point whatever resources they have are going to be spent, and the area is going to be nearly uninhabitable anyways, so it's definitely pack up and move time.

As far as Tom's extensive post goes, I reckon there's a breaking point for all of us, depending on our own personal beliefs, where a "what's mine is mine" attitude is bound to kick in. I would like to think that I have the forethought and insight to be able to predict when I can declare a surplus to my hard earned goods, none of which was given to me by anyone else, but was earned at great personal cost by me and mine. If I could say with some measure of certainty that I don't need all I got to get by, then I'd be more'n happy to share with the less fortunate, or less intelligent. Most times I don't reckon I am gonna know beforehand if things get so bad I gotta leave home.

Going to Baghdad and laying it on the line for them folks was one of those things where I felt pretty sure that if bad came to worse, my family would make do well enough without me. While I was there, I gave what I thought I could do without, which was a damn sight more than a lot of other folks with more to give than I had. I took an interest in the welfare of the less fortunate there, but I made sure I didn't give up more'n I could do without. That's how I've tried living my life, and I guess if that makes me one of them selfish uncaring types you refer to for not sacrificing when so many around me was doing without, then I stand condemned. The only thing I can think is I sure don't stand alone, for I know darned few folks who give everything they have so someone else will be a little better off. Most of the ones I met in Iraq are now buried.

My point is, I believe just about every person who walks this earth has the capacity for compassion. You or I may not see the fruits of their giving directly, but I've seen some downright hardened, wretched individuals still toss a quarter in the hat of a beggar as they walk by, even though they may not have much themselves. Labeling someone who doesn't meet your qualifications for charity at a particular point in time ascribes to you (and anyone else who would assume such judgement) an attribute that would normally be reserved for deity.

The simple facts is I can't afford more charity than my conscience will allow. The point of me working hard to get a good job that pays me good money is so I can prosper. I ain't doing it at anyone else's expense, as far as I know, and I like to think that the work I do actually helps make this world a better place for all of us. Maybe I am wrong, but I wouldn't know it from all appearances. If I didn't have a family of my own to worry about, I might be inclined to give more from my excess, even though my religion suggests I should also give from my necessity (well there's motivation for that too, but we're not talking theology here, I digress).

I've discovered an important tenet about my life: Committments exist at different levels and there is a heirarchy to them that I cannot escape. My first committment is to my girls. The next is to my community, then to my country, then to humanity, then to my religion, then to me. The reason I am at the bottom of that is because I know full well what to expect as the culmination for my existence. But do you notice that before I can consider what to do for anyone else, I have to abide by my committment to my family. That's why the only way I could go to Baghdad was to make sure they were taken care of regardless of whatever became of me. I did that, and then I moved down the heirarchy. That's why in a crisis situation, I am not likely to sacrifice much, at least not at first, for the "common good" or those in need outside of my immediate responsibility.

I suppose it ain't charity if you're giving to someone you are supposed to be giving to. I'd say it's downright irresponsible to not be able to meet your obligations to those who depend on you because you gave it up to someone you didn't know but took pity on. That kinda sounds like the government, don't it?