but is it only people with wealth and celebrity that should give? stupid question, revision: at what point do you make the decision that your means and resources aren't sufficient enough where you can help others? how relative is "wealth"?
if i have more than you, shouldn't i be obligated as a moral human being to help you?
everything turns into the final scene from "schindler's list" where liam neeson ponders how many people he could have saved with his car, or his ring. and it makes me wonder how much crap i have that i don't need and the monetary value thereof that could be better used, not just to improve the quality of someone's life, but to ensure that they can simply sustain that life.
my tv could feed a starving child in another country (fuck, in THIS country). i sit in my apartment and stare at my computer and television and vcr/dvd player and other irrelevant crap that has no impact on my ability to live, and i feel guilty.
these things only improve the quality of my life. i enjoy them but how many people would be alive today if i had given the money spent on these things to charity?
so the question of the day is: how much are we, those of us with a sense of worldliness and sincere concern for others (definitely not everyone), obligated to help those less fortunate? where's the line in the sand where you say "i won't give anymore, i'm not willing to give up this luxury or that luxury"?
the richest 500 individuals in this world have the same income as the poorest 416 million.
i think empathy and selflessness are next to godliness (although the pumpkins say emptiness is loneliness and loneliness is cleanliness and cleanliness is godliness, i disagree. i'm lonely but pretty clean). it's what seperates liberals from conservatives.
i had to throw politics in there.
of course republicans claim to be empathetic to the needs of others, but their actions scream that this only applies when "others" are white, corporate americans. right barbara bush? let them eat cake!
laura "pickles" bush yesterday said ""we've seen terrible, terrible things and we've seen unbelievably unselfish acts of giving as well by communities all across the united states and, of course, many more unselfish acts of giving than bad things...".
so more good than bad has come from the hurricane?
she goes on to say "maybe the media hasn't shown us that much, but we've read about it and we do know about it."
parallels... to... iraq... overwhelming self...
first of all pickles, you and your husband can't take credit for other people's charitable contributions. remember the tsunami, when all those poor people who weren't even americans died? you did the same thing. we "little people" helping other "little people" enmasse is a testament to us, not you and the fascist regime you operate.
i understand that there's no news like bad news, and color me badd (i'll sex you up), but i don't think providing people with a basic infrastructure to live -- electricity, water, food, etc. -- is evidence of above-average performance. you're just fixing that which you incompetantly fucked up. it's like chris rock says:
i'm betting that the response to hurricane rita will be exponentially greater since the sacred oil refineries lie in its path. don't mess with texas.
niggers always want credit for some shit they're supposed to do. they'll brag about stuff a normal man just does. they'll say something like, “yeah, well I take care of my kids.” you're supposed to you dumb motherfucker! “i ain't never been to jail.” whaddya want a cookie? you're not supposed to go to jail you low expectation-having motherfucker!
these people so lack self-awareness and compassion that it makes my head spin. crazy is the inability to ask yourself "am i crazy?". they'll never question themselves.