On Monday, Ben Affleck, actor, director, and producer, announced he will join a campaign to fight poverty in the Eastern Congo by living on less than $1.50 a day. One isnât sure whether to laugh, cry, or scream. To be sure, Affleckâs pledge of living on less than $1.50 will only be for the requisite five days (after all, letâs not get crazy now!) and, naturally, he will still drive around one of his several luxurious cars and sleep in one of his luxurious homes, all during this five-day âpovertyâ pledge. But, you ask, âWhy be so cynical, Delgado? At least heâs doing his part to get awareness out there about this charity!â Ahh, itâs the âdoing his partâ where I get stuck. Is Affleck truly âdoing his partâ? How? When? Did I miss it? Affleckâs net worth is estimated at a whopping $65 million â he and his wife, Jennifer Garner, have a combined net worth of $100 million. And yet here he is, shaking his tin can in our faces, urging us to live on $1.50 for five days to benefit the Eastern Congo. This, folks, is the essence of the âfeel-good limousine liberalismâ rampant today. From Bono to Oprah, from Affleck to Streisand, we are inundated with celebrities who preach selflessness and charity in public yet clutch their purse strings in private. But I understand, Ben: I know it feels euphoric to go home to your sprawling mansion and think that, with your $1.50-living for five days, and a quick tweet about it, youâve done your part. Itâs a ridiculously tiny act that helps you sleep at night on those 600-thread-count pillows, knowing a child in Africa has no water. Living in New York, I encountered such âfeel good liberalsâ to an irritating degree. Millionaire friends would write a $5,000 check to a charity (usually a trendy charity â one for the arts or such), attend a glamorous benefit where they get to dress up and drink (hence getting as much out of the âactâ as they gave), and pat themselves on the way home, content and satisfied theyâd done their part for humanity until next âgalaâ season. Yet they â and Ben â have done nothing. In fact, their very wealth, whilst claiming to be concerned about the plights of the downtrodden, is a glaring contradiction. Make no mistake, though: as a conservative, I have no problem with Ben Affleck hoarding his money as he does. Heck, he can roll around in a bed full of cash, ala Demi Moore in Indecent Proposal, and Iâll root him on. Itâs yoâ paper, brother â enjoy it. Hereâs the catch, though: you canât have it both ways. If you are going to rake in and keep millions annually, you simply cannot also pretend to care about plights that can be directly solved, or at least temporarily ameliorated, through financial donations. So Ben: How about, instead of your silly five-day pledge and your self-aggrandizing tweet, you write a big oleâ check instead? Will it solve the problem? Not permanently, but I can guarantee you some mouths will be fed and some lives in the Congo would be changed instantly. Câmon, isnât giving up just one of your Range Rovers worth a few kidsâ lives? You sit on millions in the bank and yet, typical limousine liberal, with a straight face you purport to care about poverty, poverty you could address in seconds with a single check. How about at least a compromise: donating a chunk of your income (not even a majority!), ala Mitt Romneyâs 30%, to this Eastern Congo endeavor? He-llo? Why do I hear crickets, Ben? But maybe Iâm just being a cynic. After all, even Marie Antoinette threw a scrap of old bread to a starving child every now and then as her carriage passed on the way to Versailles. And that was about as earnest and effective an act as your own five-day pledge, Ben. So never mind. Carry on and best of luck with your publicity stunt pledge. After all, why should your blatant hypocrisy stop you from âfeeling goodâ?