The following is a discussion snippet from Compassion International’s blog. They recently had a blog post debating transparency versus marketing with respect to the best direction for the content of their blog.
During the conversation I ran into Ashleigh, a 21-yr-old schoolgirl who seemed full of inexperience and strong opinions. For example, she touted environmental responsibility - and indeed wanted everyone to learn a “deeper understanding of poverty” that would permeate their lifestyle choices like what car they drive… yet later admitted that she herself drives an SUV (so much for that “deeper understanding”). Even better… in her blog she recently posted that this carton right here is racist (!?) and she wants people to contact the editors of Christianity Today to “firmly let them know this is not acceptable” (wait ’till you actually see the “racist” cartoon).
Anyways… I engaged this girl in attempted logical discourse - which, for your entertainment, I have included here. My discussion responses are in normal text, my reflective commentary for you is in italics, and some highlighting has been added by me for emphasis.
The Discussion
Ashleigh:
[...] I appreciated the Earth Day snippet, but I also thought it was rather wimpy. It seemed to focus only on “People in the U.S. have too much food,” when in reality, that’s not the biggest problem as far as how the U.S. contributes to environmental degradation. [...] U.S. Americans are so deeply entrenched in an economic system that exploits the poor, and most of them don’t even know it. There are so many ways to continue expanding sponsors’ understanding of poverty that will impact their whole lives (what kind of house and neighborhood they live in, who they vote for, what they drive, where they shop, etc.) [...] I do understand that you will need to restrain your critiques at points– honestly, not all people are ready for them. [...]
Oh boy, a lefty… and a quick check to her blog reveals she’s only 21 and appears to still be in college… yet seems to know so much about “U.S. Americans” and their lack of all her good qualities. Here I go.
@ Ashleigh
I find your comments offensive.
I’m not sure how much of the world you’ve seen (or even if you’re out of school yet), but the United States (and the West in general) is a gold-standard of environmental goodness next to the rest of the planet. The countries that Compassion helps are often huge polluters and it’s only with the help of the US and the West (including the people you call “deeply entrenched in an economic system that exploits the poor”) that Compassion can keep doing what it’s doing for the poor.
We don’t need finger-pointing at Compassion’s generous sponsors - obviously they already must have some “understanding of poverty” to be a sponsor in the first place.
If transparency means that this blog is just going to be about bashing the United States then the superficial marketing style of blog is looking pretty good.
Ashleigh:
Interesting thoughts, Steve. I’m sorry you were offended by my comments. Let me try to clarify:
While I agree that other countries contribute to pollution, most people don’t have cars, multiple TVs, computer, etc. like we do here. Compared with the rest of the world, the carbon footprint of those of us in the U.S. is huge! I agree that we need better environmental standards across the board, but in many areas the U.S. trails behind other advanced industrialized nations in leading the way. For example, the U.S. decided not to sign in on the Kyoto Protocol.
Similar situations exist not only as far as environmental issues go but in a multitude of areas. The U.S. has pushed forward a lot of positive progress in the world, but it is not squeaky clean. There are points at which the U.S. government or businesses have quite intentionally taken advantage of others. All countries do this– not just the U.S. The U.S. just happens to be a position of power, so complaints are rarely heard.
I am not saying bitter finger-pointing is the answer, just that a lot more than $32/month is required if we really want to take on global poverty. Poverty is a complex problem to solve even when everyone wants to solve it. (That’s why economists like William Easterly and Jeffrey Sachs argue with each other about the best way to move forward!) We all always have more to learn, and there may be some very large changes individuals, institutions, and governments of many countries, including the U.S., must make if we are all to do our part.
Yeah, first of all I’m glad we didn’t sign Kyoto. Second, by “the U.S. government or businesses” do you mean businesses like the neighborhood pub? Or more like the local tattoo parlor? Or perhaps you are referring to some big, straw-man, evil corporation business led by a fat, white, male, cigar-smoking, suit-wearing, yacht-sailing CEO having his shoes polished by Mexicans… you know, the guy your liberal professors constantly harp about?
Before I could even address the politics of her post someone beat me to it.
Jore Lund:
We accept that there is much diversity of opinion on topics outside of the ones that bring us together. We choose to “prefer on another in love” and not focus on differences that could result in divisiveness.
This does result in some holding of the tongue, but it is worth it. I love to see liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans working side by side in obedience to Christ. Frankly, the process of laboring together with those of different opinions than my own, while respecting each other, has done more to alter my views than any sort of verbal banter.
If this blog becomes a location for knock-down, drag-out discussions of controversial topics then I think we are eroding something precious.
Compassion’s purpose is not to create a hot-bed of social discourse. As one wise Compassion friend taught me; we are trying to help people see Christ in the children that are living in poverty, and give them an opportunity to be Christ to these children.
So as we try to push the outside of the envelope, let’s not rip the paper.
@ Jore
Well spoken. I think we can credibly have a fulfilling and Christ-honoring discourse here (despite our varied ideologies and perspectives) if we leave the politics and student activism out of it. There are plenty of blogs for that.
Ashleigh:
I don’t think we’ve really gotten into politics.
Is simply admitting that the U.S. isn’t perfect (nor is any other country) so political? People sin against each other, and I think it’s important to remain open to confronting and confessing sin as necessarily. Nehemiah confessed on behalf of his Israelite ancestors– is it inappropriate for us to do the same?
She’s really backpedaling at this point. Apparently ALL she did was admit “that the U.S. isn’t perfect”, and even the Bible says that America isn’t perfect.
I’ll make sure to remember in the future that if I say anything offensive it’s merely me pointing out that nobody’s perfect. Anyways, despite indications of leftist retardation I’m going to try and help her.
@ Ashleigh
I think that there is a line between honest self-critique and politically charged rhetoric. For instance, saying “Americans are so deeply entrenched in an economic system that exploits the poor” is wholly leftist and is not only political, but (in my opinion) is painfully erroneous. Although it may further Obama’s kingdom… it doesn’t further God’s kingdom, which is why we’re here.
With regard to Compassion’s generous sponsors: Have you ever been to a church on a Sunday night where the preacher was scolding his church for its shabby Sunday night attendance? The trouble is… he’s yelling at the wrong people!
Don’t be too quick to convict the $32/month sponsor when you don’t know what else they’re doing (besides their support of Compassion) to further His kingdom.
You’ve got energy and spirit and I don’t want to mute that… only to help you channel it to maximize your positive effect on your circle of influence.
Ashleigh:
Steve,
I majored in political science and took a class on international political economy. Though you may disagree with my opinions (and opinions they are), they are valid views and not inherently anti-Christian as you seem to imply. My concern is for the poor, a concern which plays a pivotal role in God’s kingdom, though I realize people have different ideas of the best means by which to help the poor. I would appreciate it if you would refrain the from unsubstantiated bashing of certain political identities without even knowing if I claim them as my own.I am not in any way trying to say Compassion sponsors aren’t generous people. I just know that in my own life, $32 is only so significant. I am still struggling to understand how I can truly give up my white U.S. American privilege that others might be blessed. $32 is a step for me, too, but I feel called to something higher than that. I think it’s important for us to wrestle with what it means to love the poor beyond simply offering a monthly donation, even one that is heartfelt.
I feel I can speak to this part of the Compassion sponsor experience because I am one, and I know what a struggle it is to truly integrate values of compassion and justice into one’s everyday life. It’s a journey I’m not finished with.
I appreciate your kindly meant closing, but that, when combined with your earlier remarks about my guessed age feel patronizing.
Maybe we can continue to discuss the ideas behind my original post rather than the specifics? I essentially said, (1) Compassion isn’t perfect and should be upfront and (2) the U.S. isn’t perfect and should be upfront. I don’t know how anyone could argue that either of these entities are perfect (even if you believe they’re mostly good!). Do people agree that an important part of this blog’s role would be engage with difficult issues like the struggles of both Compassion and the U.S. to bless the world’s poor with integrity?
Ok, I burst out laughing when I read how she’s majoring “in political science and took a class on international political economy”. With merely a few credit hours of study she’s been transformed into a global economist!!
Good Father in Heaven, its a miracle!!
Notice that my mention of Obama is “bashing” to her… which is precisely why everyone should be really bashed in any form at some point in their life - so that our bash-o-meters are calibrated and don’t register false positives. She also seemed taken aback that I would insinuate she supports Obama without knowing for sure - apparently her own blog post using phrases like “my dear Barack” surrounded by near-romantic politi-gah-gah isn’t conclusive.
Still, I’m going to try and help her…
@ Ashleigh,
Ahh, much better… hardly any political rhetoric this time.
Did you notice that your latest comment centered around _your_ own experiences, struggles, and challenges in reflecting Christ to the poor… whereas your earlier comment seemed to center around what _others_ were or were not doing? Do you see the fundamental difference in the way it reads and the perceived attitude?
And while the US and the West definitely have their issues governmentally, open critique seems to be a bit beyond the scope of this blog (although any moderators are free at any time to tell me to go jump in a polluted third-world lake). Although, we can always write our elected officials and let them know our feelings regarding upcoming legislation, current events, and foreign policy. Perhaps a good blog post might be about about just that.
I actually like what Chris was saying the best with regard to the blog “having a blend of posts that run the gamut from promotional, to informational, to educational with some being silly, others being serious, some asking questions and others answering questions”.
Ashleigh:
Steve,
Thanks for your thoughts, but I’d appreciate you let me be my own editor. I’m an adult that can take responsibility for my own thoughts and expressions; I don’t take back my initial comments, nor did I write these later ones in an attempt to please you. As I stated before, despite your good intentions, these kinds of questions and comments are patronizing and hurtful.If you would like to respond to the new questions/ideas I presented, feel free.
Thanks,
Ashleigh
The Conclusion
*sigh* Poor Ashleigh.

Web designer and developer. Loud discerner. Software engineer and 
I like that “complaints” about the U.S. “are rarely heard.” Now I know just how sheltered she is. She doesn’t even watch the news.
What kills me is that the socialist indoctrination she received in political science class didn’t also offer the corresponding philosophy. Isn’t the insignificance of $32/month the reason that people are able to give? And is that not the equivalent of a butterfly flapping its wings on this side of the world?
You know, I think you got on her nerves. But then again, most people start to get annoyed when they have been proved conclusivley that they are wrong in a field that they feel they are well educated in. Kind of like telling me I don’t know something about history that I thought I did.
I don’t understand that cartoon.
Well, she’s got her heart in the right place when trying to help poor people. The thing is that many leftist don’t know, is that they need to leave the thinking to the brain, not the heart.
WarAxe. Have you ever considered being on a debate team? I think you’d be awesome.
Questions:
1. How did you determine she was 21? She implies that you guessed (and guessed wrong at that).
2. Did she ever say to whom that cartoon was racist against?
3. How do people get pictures attached to their names? I didn’t see that when I signed up.
I know I was not logged in but I am, now. I still didn’t see a spot to put in a user picture. I mostly am posting now just to see how different it looks if I am logged in versus not.
Now I’m just being verbose. I see how you got her age. Right in her blog. I can’t believe she was being cagey about something that is readily available.
Whew. You’ve got more patience than I do.
@Rachel
Yeah, the part about “complaints are rarely heard” is so off the wall it’s a toss-up whether or not a person like that can even share logical discourse.
Hey, the Gravatar looks great! And you are quite correct in your observations.
@John3Sobieksi
Yeah, her heart is in the right place. That’s why I wanted to help get her head right as well… but she seems pretty stubborn and logic-resistant.
@John
Nice Gravatar for you, too. No, she never came out and said who was supposed to be belittled by the cartoon - I can only guess murdering savages. But what race are they, though? Perhaps they’re Armenian and _I_ should be offended. Maybe they’re clowns?
@Lance
I try (with a little sarcasm) to scoot people along the path of reason and logic… but…
Thanks.
That was great. I always enjoy an insightful mauling to start the day off right. Pursuing the conversation further would be futile. Asheigh’s ‘logic’ (and her nerve) was wearing pretty thin by the end. Too bad that the left does not give a more noble effort at being truly logical or even intellectually honest. But then, if they did, they would no longer be the left.
@Mike
I’m happy to brighten your day.
You’ll laugh - but when I hear kids who’ve only known school and/or haven’t worked a real job yet.. and they strongly expound on global issues… I think of you guys over in your corner of the planet. I think about what a profound difference it is between people who DO and DO NOT know - by experience - what they are talking about.
And speaking of this poor girl - after perusing her blog it turns out she grew up rich and is having a bad post-high-school reaction to it. She minored in African American studies (she’s white) and has posted that: “For so long I’ve struggled to accept myself as a white person. It is so easy to think of nothing but the terrible things my people have done.”
Never underestimate the power of a marxist professor and a brain full of mush.
Steve, I found your blog through your comments on the Compassion Blog.
To be honest with you, I am troubled by what you’ve written here. In your profile above you say you are a Christ-follower. I assume that means your try to live your life as Jesus Christ did. However, this post in no way resembles anything Jesus Christ stood for.
Basically you have created a public forum for mocking and tearing down your sister in the body of Christ. And you’ve allowed (and encouraged) your commenters to do the same.
I think it’s fine to disagree with Ashleigh. But do so in a manner that honors the God you both love.
It’s not just the marxist professors doing the brain washing anymore. The attitudes of black superiority, even among whites, have become self-perpetuating. In my high school, people spend a lot of their time listening to rap and trying to emulate the “gangstas.” The teachers don’t promote the ideas of black superiority, but the students sure spread it. I wonder if it has anything to do with living in such close proximity to Detroit.
@Rebecca
Did you also see in my profile above that I’m “the loud discerner”?
Christ stood for truth. If there could be just ONE overall theme in my blogging, it’d be a pursuit of truth… sometimes delivered delicately, sometimes delivered at high velocities… but pursued none-the-less. As I told Lance, “I try (with a little sarcasm) to scoot people along the path of reason and logic.” You could debate the velocity I choose at any particular moment, but to just say it doesn’t resemble ANYTHING of Christ’s character is simply folly.
So, there… that’s one thing Jesus Christ stood for. It only took 12 seconds to dismantle your core premise. If you wanna dance with me you gotta bring more game than that.
But, you get points for being honest and straightforward, so let’s press on.
Are you serious?
I think you’re being a little melodramatic, but let’s address your concerns anyway, because this is probably a good time to make the distinction (and I know that there are those who actually carefully watch my responses so that they better learn how to defend their own positions in controversial situations). And even more importantly, it’s good to address sincerely stated concerns because there’s always a chance the concerns are valid!
Every blog with open comments is a public forum… nothing wrong with that. But this “mocking and tearing down” - is that what’s really going on? Let me start by saying that I’ve had people comment directly on the post (as you can read), and comments made to me via email, and also made to me in person. The various commenters (both within this post and to me directly) range from the fairly mild-mannered to the steely intense. None of them thought I was being unkind or unfair, and many thought I was showing profound (Christ-like?) restraint. In fact, a few people have told me I was being TOO kind… PAINfully kind.
Let’s be sure to make a distinction between taking a critical look at someone’s public statements, and personally attacking their character. I’d challenge you to find anywhere in my post, or in the words of these commenters, an attack on someone’s character. This point cannot be understated… as this is exactly the type of scenario that motivates discerners to muzzle themselves, because they get skiddish about standing up for correct forms of critique. We can thank several decades of male-feminization in the Christian sub-culture for that.
So, indeed, if you read mine and my commenters words you’ll actually see more sympathy for her illogical condition than anything else - even blatant admissions that her heart’s in the right place?! Did you skip over all the Christ-resembling parts?
Now being a public forum everyone is “allowed” to opine. I accept a wide berth of opinions, and rarely do I see the need to “quell” comments. In fact, I’ve been told (by Christ-followers who’d tell me like it is if they had to) that I tend toward the restrained side when replying to comments. I think that’s true… I think it’s the nature of blogs, and of the web.
I certainly have not encouraged anyone to attack anyone’s character, nor have they done so. If something is being “torn down”, it is a statement or idea that was presented and found (by the listener) to be severely flawed. We learned in the movie ‘300′ that everyone is responsible for their own words. You have stumbled upon a place that might just be out of your comfort zone… where intellectual honesty and critical thinking is valued. Speak the truth in love - we can all agree on that… it’s just what “love” looks like that keeps getting confused. Geez, I was just having to address this very thing a week ago with a guy named “Jack” who didn’t like my post about people being free to be obese. He castigated me for being judgmental, but then said in his judgment I was “the farthest thing from a compassionate ‘Christ-follower’.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
We know from Christ’s character he was both gentle and aggressive, peaceful and near-violent, silent and loud, nurturing and sarcastic. Whatever was appropriate at the time - he was it. This is the many appearances of love and compassion. As I told “Jack”, Christ showed us both how to love the repentant prostitute, and how to “love” the temple moneychangers.
For a Christ-follower, that doesn’t give us license to pick our favorite one of those and use it exclusively… that’d be sinful. So if you’re stuck on “aggressive” Jesus, or on “passive” Jesus, you’re probably in sin.
What Christ’s example DOES tell us is that we’ve got a lot of tools in the chest, and we need to learn to use all of them as appropriate (and as we’ve been gifted by the spirit). Now - I’m about to make a profound truth statement. Is everyone ready? Prepare to copy…
If your view of love, compassion, and Christ-likeness does not allow for all of Christ’s recorded conduct in the Bible, then your view is wrong.
A fellow Christ-follower just today told me that churches have equated compassion with “wimpiness” for so long that anything un-wimpy appears un-compassionate.
Disagree probably doesn’t cover it for me. For someone to besmirch - as exploitative of the poor - a capitalist system that has seen its average “poor” become wealthier than 9/10 of the planet (and now suffer from obesity!?)… is sinfully bereft of intellectual honesty.
That besmirching statement (as well as a few others that were made) indicate a gross conceptual disconnect with reality. I believe that disconnect serves to harm her potential to help the poor, and to influence others to do the same. But that’s just my opinion.
@Rebecca,
I, am one of those who think Steve was acting with a lot of restraint. To be honest, Ashleigh was being arrogant and naive–not a good combination. Arrogant because she thinks one political science class in international political theory given by a leftist professor makes her an expert and naive because she believes that after spending a just few short years as a legal adult she actually knows something about the world. Ashleigh, by her own admission has lived a fairly sheltered life and is still understandably confused about how life works (again her own admission with statements like “her struggles”).
Let me ask you a question. If Jesus is the Son of God (which He is) and therefore omniscient–i.e., all-knowing–and He proved His intelligence as a twelve year-old when He debated the top Jewish religious leaders of the day: why did He wait until He was thirty to begin His public ministry? Answer: because in Jewish culture they recognize that people under thirty do not have much intellectual, cogent insight to add to the public debate. If you were under thirty you could not sit in the council of the elders at the gate of the city to judge matters. In other words, people under thirty do not get to sit at the big table with the adults and weigh-in on the important matters of the day. They just have not had enough experience and learning yet.
Jesus, always doing what is right, waited until the appropriate time to join the public discourse. Had He joined before thirty years of age He would have offended many of the people He came to save.
There is wisdom in Jewish culture that is often lacking in American culture (particularly since the 1960’s)–honoring our elders, heeding the advice of the learned, experienced and wise, and respecting traditions.
So, I will say what Steve was way too kind to say: Ashleigh, is too young, inexperienced, naive, and arrogant to weigh-in on the important matters of public discourse. If all she has to bring to the big people’s table is a not-yet completed political science degree (I actually earned one of those in 1996 subsequent to spending three years in the U.S. Army–you do the math on how old that makes me) and one course in international political theory then she really needs to go back to the kids table. Or, rather she can sit at the big people’s table, keep quiet, listen and learn.
Furthermore, Ashleigh is a very confused individual who does mean well (her heart is in the right place) but intellectually she has not a clue (her head is lost in space). For instance, she, according to her blog, is guilty for something she had no control over–the fact that she was born white and to a well to-do family. Rather, she should thank the Lord for being blessed to have been born in such a situation then she should do all she can to help those who have not been so blessed. There is nothing wrong with being born white or rich. Just like there is nothing wrong or right about being black, Hispanic, Asian, or Sri Lankan. In God’s eyes we are all equals: sinners whom God loves and desires to redeem.
Which brings me to another point: a wise man once said, “earn all you can so you can give all you can.” Being rich is not wrong, it is a blessing that God bestows on some and not others. Being arrogant because you are rich is wrong…just like thinking less of yourself than you ought because you are poor is wrong. If you are rich–to which Ashleigh alludes–then use your wealth to make the lives of others better. Think about this: a person who makes $50k a year and gives 10% to charity gives $5k. A person who makes $100k a year and also gives 10% to charity can give $10k (100% increase). Furthermore, if all you need to live on is $50k, then you can give away $50k if you make $100k. Your wealth can be as much or more of a blessing to others as it can to you.
Because of Ashleigh’s youth and inexperience she does not understand these concepts and thus has fallen prey to the wiles of leftist professors who desire nothing else but to deceive the young and entrap them in a world of guilt for circumstances which they have no control.
In conclusion, Steve is way more kind than you realize.
Steve,
Why do you use sarcasm “to scoot people along the path of reason and logic”?
I always try to avoid sarcasm, even though it comes naturally to me, because I think sarcasm puts people on the defensive and means that my message and point don’t get heard. It causes the person I’m trying to “teach” to react to the delivery. It often is perceived as belittling, even when the person claims its not meant to be - at least that is my experience.
@ Giovagnoni
Sarcasm is a part of the human psyche, and as such was created by God, and all that is created by God is Good
@ Earni & War-Axe
You guys are great, there is little left to say.
Nontheless, there is a little bit I do feel I could add. Jesus doesn’t just stand for Truth. A wise preacher (Fr. Corapi) I watch on EWTN says that Truth (Love, Wisdom, Mercy, etc) is not something, but somebody. And His name, is Jesus Christ. In standing for truth War-Axe is standing up for Jesus Christ Himself.
@Chris
That’s a fair question… and in some circles that question has been a biggie.
I know that Jesus used sarcasm… so that establishes sarcasm as one of the tools we’ve been given in our spiritual toolbox. I know then that there must be both appropriate (and inappropriate) uses of that tool, as there are with any tools. So that, in general, is why I use it.
Indeed, sarcasm can put people on the defensive, but I would say that if the chance of that discounted the use of sarcasm altogether then Jesus wouldn’t have ever been sarcastic. I bet when Christ drove out the moneychangers from the temple he put them on the “defensive”… for their lives.
One could argue that Christ could have been more effective if he put the whip down and nicely spoke to them. And when Christ openly offended the Pharisees and called them names, I’m sure this didn’t exactly help his point get heard.
So what does that mean? I think it means that it’s SOMETIMES okay if we offend people with the truth. Sometimes sarcasm, or even *gulp* name-calling, might be appropriate according to scripture. Of course, these “tools” have to be used wisely, no mistake about it.
But back to your point… I also tend to assign an intensity to my responses based on the person I am responding to. I would disagree with a 65-year-old church trustee much differently than I would a 21-year-old college girl. Perhaps I tend to show greater respect to the elder. The elder will probably be a better listener with all his years and wisdom, and wouldn’t require me to put a “pointy-end” on my conclusions for them to be heard - unlike today’s ADD generation. Now that’s a gross generalization, but the point is that differentiation takes place.
The question of sarcasm is near-continually going on in church circles… sarcasm, aggression, name-calling… and I’ve heard that none of those things are Christ-like. Yet Christ used them, so something is out of joint. Like I said: If someone’s view of love, compassion, and Christ-likeness does not allow for ALL of Christ’s recorded conduct in the Bible, then the view is wrong.
Although everyone is different, and people have their own gifts in different areas. If you avoid sarcasm as a way to make your “teaching” more effective then that’s great. Being from a military and “black and white” engineering background I have found blunt-force truth to more effective… and that’s great, too.
This response ended up being much longer than I planned. I must go practice my guitar now for tomorrow.
Thanks for the response Steve.
You know, there’s one thing that bothers me about the Johnny-come-latelys who criticize you and your content, Steve. Ironically chosen words, I know, based on my name and when this post went up but you know…
Having read Ashleigh’s own blog myself (well, not the WHOLE thing but I read several of her entries), I know you also read it. I never get the impression that many of these people who show up pointing fingers when you post something controversial ever read any more than that one post. I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than judging a person solely on a one line of thought. That’s like walking down a street and hearing somebody talk about how it’s taking his super too long to fix his broken window, and deciding you know everything about that person now. Can you can conclude that the person in my example looks down on the poor, working-class slob who is supposed to fix things? What you really know is how said individual feels about the situation. You don’t know anything about how he feels about the person that is the building super. Which brings me right back to Steve’s comment where he throws down the gauntlet and asks if you can point out where he attacks the person.
Frankly, to me this seemed much more like commentary on a number of social woes we face than on Ashleigh herself. But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
@John
Oh boy, if I had a quarter for every time someone spouted off at me without reading my whole post (or any of my post)… then I could roll those quarters, waltz out of the house, and change the way I understand poverty by purchasing an SUV.
One Trackback
[...] that it rhymed! …I love this too much] Well, since I’ve taken so much flak for not being compaaaaassionate lately I’ll add the following [...]