Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Redefinition of poor

I found this story on the website fro the Telegraph, a UK paper, but it is in more places than that... you've probably seen it elsewhere.

Now, let me start by saying that I have no problem with charity. I give when I can, and I volunteer as a CPR, 1st Aid, and AED instructor at the Red Cross. I think Michelle Obama (and my mother and her household) are great for volunteering their time as well. It is the spirit of voluntary giving (voluntary does not equal compulsory) is one of the things makes America great. Fouthermore, the organization, being charitible and private, should be able to give lunch to whomever they like. It is their kitchen and their volunteers. If people did not like their practices, then they would stop donating their time, money, and foodstuffs to the organization and they would fold under. I cannot see a free soup kitchen for pro-athletes, actors, bankers and congressmen opening up on the local corner anytime soon. My peoblem is more with the people with their priorities out of whak who think it is okay to prey on the charity, voluntary like these kitchens, or compulsory as in foodstamps and welfare, who could find ways to get through if they realized things like BMWs, cellphones, cable TV... are not necessities, but luxuries and can be cut from the budget.

My questions for this article are these... If the guy is poor/homeless, where is the cellphone bill being sent? and Who is paying it? Moreover, if the kitchen were to run out of food before serving all the patrons, and actual homeless poor were waiting in line, would the guy feel the least bit of remorse?

I think I might know the answer to that one...

No soup for you, TWO WEEKS!

1 comment:

Just John said...

The guy with the cell phone is obviously milking that deal for all it's worth. Remember that he votes too!