No, Lox, I'm not missing the point at all.

"As nice or as mean as he might be, he cannot be on 'our side' - his existence as an example of the divide between the super rich and ordinary people is a matter of concern."

I don't accept that. That's prejudicial thinking.

I've lived long enough to see peoples' viewpoints and values change as their circumstances change and they grow older, and sometimes, wiser. As, indeed, mine have changed and grown in the light of new knowledge and new insights. There are numerous stories of wealthy people who were hard-charging and often quite unethical when they are young, but as they grew older, their ideas—and there moral principles—altered.

History is full of examples. Without writing a whole treatise on the subject, look at the life of Andrew Carnegie, founder of U. S. Steel. Early on, he was as much a "robber baron" as many during his era—but in later life he turned his attention to philanthropy. In fact, he wrote books on the subject and urged his wealthy compatriots to turn their vast wealth into "doing real and permanent good in the world." Among his many philanthropic acts, he started a nationwide public library system. He also said, "He who dies rich dies in disgrace." In short, "Now that you have it, do some good with it."

This didn't end with Carnegie. Take a look at THIS.

I'm not about to condemn someone just because they have a lot of money. What are they DOING with that money is the important question.

Don Firth