But they also may have solutions, being they are neighbors. As such, they face the dangers of a too-hungry population (look up the problem of kidnappings in Mexico) who commit crimes against them, in order to live one more day.

It is in everyone’s best interest to balance out the extremes, but not by offering what is known among the Alcoholics Anonymous as “enabling” a piecemeal, a recreational vehicle or two, or a swig from my bottle. This would be “extravagance.”

It is by empowering that this cycle of impoverishment is brought to end. It is by elevating human dignity, not by stuffing the beak with a only a temporary crutch of relief. 1 or 100 RVs are not the answer, they are only another extravagance.

Empowerment means they become educated and motivated to divide the economy more equitably, to allow a Sunday Afternoon of fun for everyone, no more scrubbing the trash cans, not for one poor person.

The rising tide which lifts all boats is what each desert of humanitarian insight requires.

cf

I don’t consider myself very religious (not even Christian) but everyone here does make a very valid point and it’s got me re-thinking my what-ifs with the lottery. Great article and comments!

Point of clarification, I wasn’t judging anyone, but expressing my personal feelings of how that wouldn’t be a right decision for me and why. To each their own.

The comparison between what scale of extravagance is available to citizens of such widely different governments, is a difficult one to make “stick,” as Guatamala’s citizens do not have the scale of education, of opportunity, nor do they have an infrastructure as rich as the US. The characters of fame and fortune are not shown here as philanthropists, so we do not know if the actors mentioned are generous to the poor. Someone responded above, saying that there is usually an economy of jobs following these major players, some who might be generous indeed!

It’s upon a scale of political differences that makes or breaks a citizen’s opportunity at his own small extravagances.

Is it wrong? Or bad? If millions are put out of their household in the US while an elite class of bankers get a “rescue” for their shoddy “subprime” loans, that is both bad and extravagantly wrong. If Senators Vitter (R) and Craig (R) are still in office, while Elliot Spitzer (D) takes a fall, this is both extravagant, and wrong. The fact that Spitzer went down at the same time as this “save” on Wall Street was occuring was also extravagant, and wrong.

When extravagance is borne upon a poor population, it is wrong. While maintaining health care for only a small group, excluding many others, that is an unacceptable extravagance for society.

If the actor mentioned is moved by sharing his bed(s) and shower, he will, and that for him may be an extravagance!

We cannot judge but merely protest the great divides separating humanity from the humane, our hearts from our ability to share.

I congratulate the wealthy who are often humanitarians as well. Leave well enough alone on judging someone for their wealth or status. We can only hope they feel something too.

Great looking truck!

cf