Originally Posted by Trulytrue:
“I have looked everywhere and the only reference to leftovers that I can find, is a link to this thread and a gossip page where it says it was probably leftovers. Where does it say it was? Im not doubting you as you seem to know , but for the life of me I cannot find it and its doing my brain in now. I dont like half a story
These people seem to be hated by many I have no idea why, but when you let your own dislike get in the way of sense then its those people who come across as hateful. Keep the hate for when people do hateful things.
I could have done more for the homeless than I did this year. but I do not deserve to be sneered at because of that.”
OK, so if we consider the likely unit cost of each of these "gourmet meals" and multiply it by one hundred.... then consider how much further the money for this would stretch if the meals were not "gourmet standard" but were still high quality produce, nicely cooked and presented by a capable and imaginative cook. That would show a greater intention to provide for as many people as possible on the same budget - would it not?
Now I am not suggesting for one moment that just because someone is homeless that they are somehow not entitled to receive a "gourmet meal", because that is not the case. However, if someone was really keen to reach out and help deserving people to enjoy a decent meal on Christmas Day, would it not be logical to make sure that the budget for it benefited as large a number of people as possible?
The fact that the "gourmet" standard of this food has been emphasised is what lends weight to the argument that this food was not originally intended to be served to the homeless. If the plan was always to provide food to the homeless on Christmas Day, why would it have to be intimated as "chef-cooked" or "gourmet standard"?
It doesn't. By drawing attention to its provenance as "chef cooked", as opposed to mass catered, this is either Kris Jenner putting on airs and graces about HER acts of charity being somehow more worthy than those of other charitable donors - OR, it was her party leftovers.
Someone who REALLY wants to help as many people as possible will not imbue their charitable efforts with a veneer of thinly-veiled superiority.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that anyone is sneering at you. If you donated your hard-earned cash or otherwise gave of your valuable time or your labour to help the homeless this Christmas, then you are to be applauded for that. The value of charitable giving is somewhat relative and those who can afford to give more should probably do more. I know a lot of ordinary people who have done a lot of good stuff for various homeless charities this year, both financially and practically. Their heartfelt gestures are far more meaningful than a multi-millionairess sending gourmet meals to feed a very modest number of people.