Free Republic

I love the title on this ("more liberal whining.") It's gotten to the point where the libs do nothing but whine!

Oh, come on. I'm just trying to discuss the various issues (apart from Sandra Bullock's love life) that have come up in this thread. And as for her love life, it's her business. Although I completely agree with those who have pointed out how adorable Matthew McConaughey is!

Well, that's a great response when someone isn't saying exactly what you want to hear.

Others in this thread have responded in a better way, and I now see the point--although I don't like it when the press finds ways to make stories all about Hollywood, it is good that her contribution gets publicity, because it may motivate more of those with lots of money to make a large contribution, and it may prick the conscience of anyone, famous or not, who has not yet given. Had you made such a point to me in a kind way, I would have listened. But "talk to the hand" was the typical response of junior high students in the mid-90s and doesn't contribute to discussion.

Actually, publicity about her gift is extremely important. "One of the axioms of fundraising is that when people see that others have contributed, they are more likely to contribute as well. Part of it is from a bandwagon effect and part of it is from seeing that someone else has "endorsed" the effort. This could stir not only other celebrities to give money (out of guilt, perhaps, but if it works, that's all that matters), but the "little people" as well."

A good point that I had not thought of. My immediate reaction was to be upset, feeling like yet another thing got turned by the press into a story all about Hollywood and all about further glorifying the rich and famous mostly-libs of that town. But if publicity about this motivates more to give, then it's a good thing.

I agree. And making a contribution is a good way to go beyond spectator. Otherwise we are in danger of doing what this article talks about--just watching the video footage as a detached, curious observer. Putting our own hard-earned money to use helping the victims and taking time to personally pray is important. We can't all go to Thailand or Indonesia, of course, but we can still personally help.

I didn't. Her contribution, while obviously large, isn't more in terms of percentage of income or sacrifice than the $500 given by a factory worker, manager, or teacher. That was my whole point. As others have pointed out, the press isn't going to pay as much attention to the $50 or $500 contributions from all over the country, and maybe if more celebs were acting instead of just talking there'd be less of a novelty about a rich person giving a lot of money to make it a story. But at the same time, I hate that one person's contribution is being treated as special just because it was big and that a contribution has turned into a Hollywood story.

It's also mathematically true. It's part of having a market that places such a disproportionately high value on Hollywood's products.

That't true. I guess I'm just not happy with a disaster and anyone's response to it getting turned into a Hollywood story. It's not Sandra's fault--she did the right thing--but it's upsetting when anyone pulls entertainment news out of a tragedy like this. She gave what she is financially able to give, as have all (I hope) of us, and it shouldn't be news or turned into Hollywood publicity in the media.

Nice try at what? All I'm saying is that everyone is giving. A person who makes millions can give a million, and a person who makes $50,000 can give only $1000. It's all important and we shouldn't be honoring one more than the other. I'm a Sandra Bullock fan and have always thought she seemed more "real" than many stars. But that doesn't mean she deserves special treatment, and I certainly hope that she herself would say that her contribution wasn't made for publicity reasons.

"Sure you do.

Your post is downright tacky."

Excuse me for daring to think that the press should honor all of the individuals who don't have extra money but have given anyway. I truly did not want to downgrade her contribution, I hope other celebs will put their money to good use and not just talk about helping, but at the same time, I wish the press wouldn't latch onto her contribution as though it's size makes it more meaningful than what average Americans are doing. She probably didn't give to get public attention for it, but if public attention is being given it should also focus on the fact that Americans as a general rule are giving even when it hurts. My post wasn't aimed at her, it was aimed at the press's reaction to what she did.

While I'm glad to hear of a celeb actually donating a big chunk of money instead of just talking, $1 million isn't a huge sacrifice for someone who can easily make $20 mil in a year without even working the whole year. I don't want to downgrade her contribution, but I'd like to hear "regular folks" get public commendation for giving what for them is a bigger percentage of their income and requires a huge personal sacrifice.

Yes, but that's based on substance. He's trying to say that the only reasons he lost are style and the times (that it's wartime)which he obviously can't control. He's not admitting he lost because his policies and history demonstrated that he would have been a terrible president (at any time but especially now.) He along with almost all Dems want to blame non-substantive things to avoid being actually wrong.

Sure, John, it was all style. Your (lack of) reasonable substance had nothing to do with it.

There's no need to hop a flight to Thailand to be more than a spectator. Prayers and/or financial donations don't require medical training, joining the Marines, or relocating to the other side of the globe.

I know! I was piggybacking my question on yours. I guess I shouldn't have replied to you and quoted your question before posing mine, I should have replied to the first post and then quoted your question and added mine.

"That's not for me to decide. For my own case, I have four children. I am praying that I have good daughter and son-in-laws. I am preparing for my emotional future. I want more than anything to be the type of person others will want to be around when I am old and feeble. Others can do what they wish. I, on the other hand, want to be surrounded by family on my deathbed."

First, I hope that you aren't saying that you had kids to insure your own future. That would be just as selfish as saying that you didn't have kids to insure your own future. Having children or not having children shouldn't be all about what they can or can't do for you when you're 80. Second, I also want to be surrounded by family if I am blessed enough to die in bed at an old age. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to run out and get married and pregnant just because I fear being alone in a few decades. Third, you're assuming that someone without children and in-laws will be alone if they die in bed at an old age. Maybe you don't have siblings, close nieces and nephews, close friends, etc. and only have the immediate family your created, but that's not always the case.

"To all the people calling these folks "selfish":

Do you think married people who don't want children should have them???

Stop and think for a moment."

And do you really think that the only reason someone doesn't have kids is selfishness? Unless you have quotes straight from that person like those in the article, you can't know why someone is childless and cannot assume a selfish motive.

"Being childless and having abortions are from the same root: selfishness. Period, end of story. If you could have, but do not have, kids, why waste the oxygen? I know this is harsh, but..."

You can only apply this attitude to someone whom you absolutely know to be childless for nothing but selfish "I don't want to take the time to care" reasons. The problem is that so many people who think like you apply this attitude to someone BEFORE understanding why they are childless. It may not stem from selfishness and isn't your business anyway. So don't assume that selfishness is the root, as you put it, when you just don't know.

I agree. I am a big supporter of traditional marriage, but at the same time I have experienced more than my fair share of disdain and condescension from fellow conservatives who assume I'm liberal because I'm unmarried or who act as though I must have something wrong with me to not be married already. I think parenting is a high calling, yet I also think that even some of us who would love to be parents may never experience it for various reasons not related to selfishness.

Kind of reminds me of the pictures of St. Paul's in London during the Blitz--much of the area was destroyed but the large dome sticking up as a clear target didn't get hit.