I like Hollywood-type liberals, I always have. They are rich and privileged, so they really have no reason to help others. But they still do. So they are more sincere and you take them doing that more seriously then.
Yep…I like people with empathy and a human perspective. Not many folks in the administration can claim any such values.
Being an actor means you have to comprehend people, yet nobody can really comprehend themselves, lending the profession to more empathetic people. Wall Street brokers, tend to be very different.
I'd better add a comment here. I'm not dissing your opinion Jimbee68. I just think there's a better measurement (not just wealth), to ascertain how sincere and benevolent people are. Actually getting involved in the subject matter as well as donating, which I expect only some in Hollywood do. Aside from the opening sentence, I sort of disagree. Some may be rich but that doesn't mean they have no reason to help others. Helping others doesn't mean they're sincere (whatever comparison you used to suggest 'more' sincere). Wealth can be a good thing but, for me, only if it comes with a significant amount of philanthropy or altruism - and I don’t accept that only liberally-minded people do that. Of course, it's an issue of the alignment of one's moral compass which makes the difference rather than being liberal or wealthy. i think there's something wrong when people are able to privately launch rockets to space when other people are struggling/starving, through no fault of their own. An example of one guy I know who is not a liberal guy. A particularly cold winter in the UK, he was preparing to go and buy a new overcoat once he had finished breakfast. We're talking about a bespoke coat here of several 000s gbp cost. However a report on the radio describing an issue affecting children elsewhere in the world prompted him to cancel the appointment with his tailor and, instead, he investigated that issue in greater depth until he knew whether to and how best he could help. He didn’t just donate the monies that would have been spent on the overcoat. He discovered what items were needed for those children and he purchased them and donated them so his money (were he to have donated cash) wouldn't be lost in the admin costs of the charitable organisation but would all go to benefit those in need. That's much more of an effort than a Holywood person (or anyone else), chucking money at something, imv. And another guy who had been very successful in global business. He's not on a rich list because, whilst he retained enough of his wealth to let him and his wife enjoy their life, he put the majority of that wealth into a Trust. That Trust meant it was no longer his money and the purpose of the trust was to help others less fortunate than he and his family. (Long before Bill G was reported to have done something similar). I also know some 'normal people', retired or unemployed but with few resources, who help others with their time and skills. And theres a long-term TV series in the UK, in which trades-men and trades-women give up their time, using annual leave or unpaid leave, to rebuild or adapt some person's house - a person they dont even know - to enable them to live in their home. Think MS, MND, amputees, and wheelchair users who suddenly can't get upstairs to their bedroom or bathroom or who can't get the wheelchair through ground-floor doorways or even get over the step into the house. And think of the effects of those difficulties on the children in the family. It seems to me that empathy and compassion are much more meaningful motives, to help others less fortunate, than is the ability to throw cash somewhere and be done. Anonymity, too, is a good thing. I really enjoy hearing about people who help others discreetly and where nobody knows (in the public sphere), until after their death.
