1.  I am kind of shocked at how earily similar this is to my experiences growing up as a child.  We lived in a magical land (Kansas) where we lived without a care in the world.  One day on the TV, I was introduced to world poverty and was obviously very shocked that some people didn't get to go to Six Flags onweekends and experience the world's 5th steepest roller coaster.  Also, what bothers me even more is that I accepeted the fact that some people just get flat out shit on and left in the dust.  I don't know how my parents convinced me thats okay, but in reality, it really isn't.  
2.  I think it is saying some countries require just the bare minimum to have people happy.  Then in some developing countries, they get by with a slightly better quality of life without much harm to the environment or exploitation of others.  Then there are consumer countries like American that people obtain their happiness essentially through the misery of poorer countries who have to face the destruction we cause the the environment and the exploitation of their people for cheap labor.
3.  Because each person has their own personal definition of happiness and filling if in with what you think would create the prestein Utopian society the author is trying to convey to you.      
4.  We see kids in boxes (televisions) who face extreme poverty and can't get out which is why he made the reference to jails.  Then there are people like us who have the money and means to help these poor children, but for whatever reason just accept that they are poor and that they must be there so we can prosper.

    I was at first not interested and here is my reasoning.  They are obviously a lot better off than the average American.  This means there sacrifices although they appear only minorly restricting to this paticular family could put a lot of other families in a financial crisis.  It was a pretty crazy idea, especially since the whole idea was sparked from the quip of their 14 year old daughter.  I personally wouldn't take anything my teenage kids say to heart because their personalities are so unstable that they would probobly be feeling completely different about the subject tommarow.  The whole point of the story is that we are trained in a capitalist society to believe that we must keep striding for more and more money.  That money is happiness.  They are trying to show you that giving people is what really brings you happiness and you don't need all the fiscal things you think you need.  
     This kind of made me realize a huge flaw in Peter Singer's argument.  The only reason his idea would ever work is because it is in theory, aka it won't work.  People exploit things, thats a fact.  If people realize they don't have to work hard to make as much basically as their neighbor who spent 12 years in college.  They will start slacking off and eventually stop working.  This will cause everyone to become impoverished.  The one way their thing works and Singers doesn't is because their's still gives an incintive to work hard and push yourself.   
    I believe there is a happy medium that I've realized can exist.  You don't need to keep all the money you earn for yourself.  Thats a given.  You howewver cannot give everything but the bare minimum away because I already discussed the outcome of that.  I still believe it would be morally appropriate to give a substantial (not all) of your excess money to some charity.  I also believe it is important to set aside money to ensure for the better future of the world.  
    I would never consider making such a dramatic change.  I am a selffish person and am completely aware of it.  However, if my parents made the decision, and I was unable to talk them out of it.  I suppose I could live with some cut backs in my life.
It would have to be a family change however because the only thing that would keep me going is seeing the suffering of others to make me feel better about myself.

1.  Much of Western society is under the impression that they do not need to act to help save people in need who happen to be placed on the oppossite side of the world.  He thinks people in Western countries are too centered around personal wealth and although they don't know it, morally obligated to help people in need no matter where they are on the world. 
2.  Singer proposes multiple solutions, some more radical than others, however all of them do pose orthodox solutions to solving the problem he presented.  His most radical one is that every person is morally bound to give any exess money they have to charities in need so long as it doesn't put you or your dependents in the situation of the those you are giving to in the first place.  This solution would come across as irrational to many people who live in the developed Western World and many would ask "why?", he retorts that almost anyone will agree that if someone were to die of a preventable cause such as hunger or shelter, that is morally bad.  Especially seeing as someone could have easily prevented it by throwing a few extra bucks their way.  His next solution is population control.  He says that anyone who believes the world would be better off if we start weening down the population is being a hypocrit if they don't advocate for better population control.  If your not against it, your supporting it and thus you must at least try to promote its cause.  His last solution although moderate, is everyone is required to give a lot, but not all their money so they still have some excess so they can dive into their fiscal desires. 
3.  Singer discusses how in many societies, giving isn't a good thing to do, its required.  Some religions word for charity is justice which shows some obligaion of its people to do.  One really interesting thing he talked about was that some people have the mindset that if they give money to overseas charities, the government won't feel obligated to do so and thus, an individual should try and keep their contributions within the state.  This makes no sense at all because if the government observes no people donating to an orginization, they would deem the citizens don't care about it and thus deem it unworthy of the tax payer dollars they have to spend.  His problem with generosity is that although some people donate, not nearly enough people do nor on a large enough scale and is it being generous or is it just doing the right thing. 
4.  A)  The first objection made is that this is in fact, too radical.  He counters this by saying most people only seem to care when a moral norm is broken such as theivery, not when someone indulges in luxary.  Since he laid out no moral neutrality, peoples judgements on his conclusions will not effect his answer.  People commonly believe that is not ones duty to help those outside ones society.  This belief doesn't give any distinction between what he calls duty and supererogation, and thus does not justify anything.  The true moral point of view requires one to look beyond the interests of ones own society.  He also mentions that although throughout time this might not have always been possible, it is without question possible today with technology allowing us to dominate the world.
    B)  Some people believe it is our duty to be working full time to increase the balance of happiness over misery.  Although he doesn't counter it, he says it detracts from his argument and has no real application because he argues that while at the same time, we ought to be working full time to relieve those who have been stricken by famine and disaster.
    C)  It is common belief of some that they should not give money overseas because that will allow the government to become lazy and not bother doing the same, as I stated earlier in the article.  This couldn't be further from the truth however because if a government sees no one activily participating in a cause, they will not feel compelled to spend tax payer dollars on a cause that their people don't even appear to care about.  In fact, you should volunteer a lot and get others involved to raise awareness and get the government aware of the cause so they will act. 
5.  According to Singer's argument, I believe it is an individuals duty to give any excess money one does not require to keep oneself and dependents alive to random charities.  The random part is a big part of it because no people are techincally more worthy of your help on a moral grounds, even if someone happens to be your friend, or you don't really like someone else, everyone as a human being, should have the right to aid from others.  He acknowledges that although their may be holes in his solution, it focuses more on the big picture that it will bring people together compared to the current trend which seems to be isolating people from one another and pulling them apart.

Who is presented as the protagonist in each story?
GR:  General  Romeo Dallaire is definitly one of the protagonists presented in this documentary.  He doesn't suceed, although it goes without question that his defence of the Tutsi saved hundreds if not thousands of lives.  There were also many Hutus who went against their clans genocide to save thousands of Tutsi lives.  Many went unnamed and were probobly killed for treason. 
HR:  Paul Rusesabagina is without a doubt the protagonist in "Hotel Rwanda".  He makes clear efforts throughout the movie to stop the Hutu from killing innocent civillians.  Not only that, but he manages to save 1,000 plus people comming from both tribes by hiding them in his hotel.  Not only that, but the story is basically presented almost completely from his point of view which kind of hints at him being the protagonist. 

Who or what was most responsible for the genocide? 
    I am actually going to be talking more about this in my project actually.  I think the most responsbile person group of people for this is European nations for allowing the Hutus to aquire massive amounts of weapons and giving them no warning on how dangerous the weapons can be.  They fueled the Hutus for money with no care about the immoral attrocities that were going to take place because of it.  They also then had the oppurtunity to step in and stop the genocide once it had started and no one took the oppurtunity to step in stop it because they were too worried about their own financial well-being. 

How is Canadian General Romeo Dallaire presented differently in each film.
    The main difference I would have to say is that in the documentary, Dallaire was able to portray himself they he wanted, not as a hero, but just layout the facts and give his view on how the whole thing played out.  In the movie they tried to portray him as a good guy, which he himself didn't feel like one because of the fact that he technically failed at his mission (although I'm pretty sure he did give his best effort) and he explained in the documentary how he felt that he had failed at his mission and suffered depression because of it.

How concerned with historical accuracy do you think the creators of each film was?
    For starters I think the creators of Ghosts of Rwanada were very concerned for the historical accuracy for the fact that basically the entire documentary was personal testimonies which leaves very little room for fiction to enter.  Although some forms of bias may have formed, I think the historical accuracy of the film goes without question.  However, Hotel Rwanda takes real characters and puts them in a semi-historically accurate plot, but as everyone knows, any movie that goes through hollywood will never be 100% historically accurate as bits and peaces were proboboly added to make it more of an exciting movie.