true, and by not spending the money, it in fact did not go to all those poor suffering people, im sure, instead it stayed in the pockets of the higher ups... i agree with u absolutely, the problems is never gunna b solved by patching a bandaid over it, those countries need to get there shit in order and some sort of economy needs to be created
I'd like to do something to help make a difference and you're right, MollytheHippy, we shouldn't blame others for the problems in the world. What is Heifer International? I'd like to start there. Could you explain what it is? Thanks very much and peace out.EarthSong
heifer international is a program that provides a goat of other suitable livestock to women so they can provide for their families, sell surplus milk to have income... the particular type of goat they use is particuarly abundant in milk supply
Thats what I was just going to say. It's like they're saying, you can only help the world if you do this, and doing this isn't helping the world out enough. Every little bit helps, I don't care if its the smallest thing you can do, its still helping somebody out.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions i'm saying to focus on whole economies and not hand outs but your right... its cool people are thinking outside of their own plate and thinking about others painful situations
not all help is help... lots of clothes are going from the salvation army to africa and its completely undermined the local indigenous textile industries there to the point they are collapsing... and so this help is creating a bigger problem... do you see the point? if you don't, i will call you stupid
Of course, your point is perfectly clear, but what do you think about helping other countries with things like teaching? In the future, I plan to go to China to teach poor communities English. I don't think this is so much as a temporary hand-out, as these children will have a new ability for life.
i think its great to go to poor communities and teach them english... one is in great poverty both materially and spiritually if they do not know how to speak and read english in my country while the plight of the native americans has been tragic, at least they learned english
I think you're avoiding the point. It's not about teaching them English, it's about teaching them a language and an ability.
yes, i think going to other countries to share some of our values coded in what we call education is a great gift but i think as well in the outbreath and outreach of giving what we know, i think its important to breathe in and learn what others have to teach us as well... in the ground swell of corporatism spreading over the world which is so much encased in the western education system, the small delicate flowers of indigenous and community understanding must as well be appreciated and cultivated so our world has balance in its perspective in short, i think its great you going to china to teach but knowing you as who you are, i know as well in your going to china, you are as well going there to learn
Thank you for the link, MollytheHippy. I think that by helpng others we can all make a difference. Peace out.
No one said celebrities are the route of all evil. I believe what was said, which I will paraphrase now, was more along the line of this: "Celebrities can help, but don't help as much as they are able to." Celebrities the route of world poverty? No. Celebrities holding back from a greater good in which they have access to? Yes.
Every other Joe, Dick, or Harriet gives a few coins to the Salvation Army guy who rings his bell in front of the mall. Maybe not all the time. But sometimes. Joe, Dick, and Harriet might purchase one of those "One dollar more" coupons that adds a dollar to their grocery bill in order to buy groceries for the food bank. Maybe you don't see Joe, Dick, or Harriet lobbying on TV and protesting for the greater good, but that's because Joe, Dick, and Harriet all have jobs or have something to do to keep the food on the table. Celebrities have 'ACCESS' to the greater good. By that, I mean celebrities could actually reach the greater good. Their impact financially (if they so chose to do so) would be a hundred times that of any Joe, Dick, or Harriet. The fact that Joe, Dick, and Harriet (the averages) contribute where they can says a lot more than the celebrities who are rolling in extra cash that is excreted from fans who buy their purchandise. If all I had to do was sing, have people admire me while I sing, and while I'm not doing anything, take a few pictures, handle a few paparazzi, etc. and it meant I'd earn enough money to save a city, I'd do it. I'm your average Harriet, and I make about 600 bucks a month, have 340 of that for rent, and have to pay for my post secondary education. I'm and 18 year old Harriet. I hold people like celebrities who have extra cash to a higher standard simply because that money is basically given to them with no hard work at all. They harness the financial power to access the greater good. I, Harriet, do not.
1) i don't hold anyone to a higher standard... i choose to live my life in the truths i have found meaningful and others can do as they wish... and i think that is how reality evolves... when others are inspired by others 2) if you are going to bring celebrities into this, many do plenty... name names and not a group of people as if by being a member of this group, you are responsible for the ills of the world... and too, many celebrities have become as such by having an artistic spirit that many find inspirational and uplifting 3) think a more inclusive term of those you are targeting would be the rich... celebrities may or may not be rich... just people who are known but the rich are much much more and many are unknown
1) You can go on not holding anyone to any standard, and that's fine. Inspiration only goes so far. Maslow's heirarchy of needs illustrates when people can start looking for inspiration in their lives. A lot of rich celebrities are still looking for love. Maybe a child sponsorship could bring this feeling? 2) I'm not the one who brought up celebrities. You're way off track. I simply responded to a post that was in response to someone else saying that it made them sad that celebrities don't do as much as they could. The person I was responding to assumed that person was saying that celebrities were the route of all evil and poverty. I corrected him or her. I haven't been blaming celebrities, and it hasn't been from my own meandering thoughts. I was simply reinforcing the fact that celebrities ARE RICH and can afford to help more than they do. I'm not blaming them, and 3) I'm not saying they're separate from the "rich". I'm saying they ARE rich, and that the person's post I was responding to was an incorrect paraphrase of the person he or she had quoted.
