My reaction to the story.  I thought that the story was very confusing at first, but I loved how it was written.  Once I finished the story, I thought it was interesting.  I thought that it was "though-provoking" while still confusing.  The line to me, means that happiness is often based on whether your needs are met, and on the things that you have that are either just "there" (like luxury items) and items that are there and also destructive. I think that she gives us the freedom in imagining this "as we like it" because one it makes it more personal and accessible, and I think it also gives you a chance to grasp the larger concepts that she introduces.  She invites you to imagine that these people are not simple fantasy people.  They are real people, complex people, and the do the things that we do, and feel the feelings that we do, excepting guilt.  They are people that also do things "unsaintly".  They have orgies and take drugs, they are not the perfect utopina society.  And I think that the fact that they are not the perfect utopian society makes it easier to grasp the point that

My first reaction to what we read was half incredulity, half impressed.  I was thinking, "How could someone do something so enormous on the say of a fourteen year old girl???".   However, the farther I read into this, the more I was impressed by what they were doing.  It's a pretty audacious idea, to give up half of what you have (they had an elevator!!!). 
I think that the point of the story here is that we really don't need most of what we have, and that if we get past our materialism, we realize it would really  not be to hard to give it up.
This story actually does change my views on Peter Singer's arguements, but only a bit.  It makes me think that the whole idea of giving up a majority of what you have is possible, but something that's keeping me from totally supporting the view is that these people had a 6,500 square foot house.  To move into a house that is 3,250 square feet does not seem like it would be uncomfortable, or much a trial.  That is still a pretty dang big house for four people.  I do think that what they are doing is pretty awesome, and in line with what Peter Singer was trying to get across as his point.
I would consider something like it.  I have three younger brothers that would probably faint at the idea of giving up their precious toys, but I do recognize that I spend a lot of frivolous money.  I go shopping, I get coffees (a lot), I go out to eat with friends, and etc.  I think that it would not be much a hardship for me to give up all of these things, and maybe throw in that I won't make unecessary car trips to save on gas, and then put that money towards a charity that I think is a good cause.  I already put half of each paycheck into savings, which proves that I don't really need it (or really much of my paycheck at all) to get by.  This is most likely because I still live with my parents.  I would do it if their was a cause I felt strongly enough about. 

There is so much to say about the subject of Joseph Kony and the Invisible
Children organization.  I would guess that a majority of America has heard about
it by now, and it's spreading even farther, through the use of social media. 
The "promo" of the invisible children organization is very convincing, and
really pulls you into the cause.  Which, of course, is it's goal.  They want
people to want to help their cause.  And it's a great cause no doubt, and
definitely something that all of us, as human beings, should care about.  Their
video makes me question a few things though.  First off, it's very well made
(which is why it's been spreading so far and fast) but there is not a lot of
concrete information in there that I could pull out, and at the end there was
still a lot of questions about the cause that were not answered.  The point of
the video is obviously just to get the cause out there.  Second, was what they
were telling us to do. Their solution was to make the leader, Joseph Kony,
known.  Well they have definitely succeeded.  My question is how effective is
that at really helping the cause?  Just sharing the video on facebook or twitter
doesn't seem like it would do a whole lot right?  My view is that the more
people you reach with the cause, the more times you will reach someone who
genuinely wants to do something about it and then DOES something.  So there are
more people actually acting to end Joseph Kony, and they keep pressure on our
government to use their power to do the same.  However, I don't know enough
about the statistics of the organization in the last week to know if that's
true.  Are they really getting more things done, or is there just more people
out there who know the name Kony, but content themselves with just retweeting
the message? It's something that I'd like to look more into as the campaign
moves forward

The issue that Peter Singer is addressing is the morality of being affluent while others are starving and near death. Singer asserts that we have an obligation to help the people who are starving just as much as we might have an obligation to save a drowning child.  He reasons that since we CAN save them, it is immoral to NOT save them.  The same thing as standing by and letting the child drown.  He proposes that we do this by actually doing something about it, by giving an amount that would really help the Bengali people.  He even goes so far as to say that we should give our wealth away until we are at the same level as the Bengalis are.  Which would be unreasonable to ask of most people, he admits, as the Bengalis live on a day-to-day barely surviving.  Singer doesn't like terms like "charity" and "generosity" because he thinks they imply that giving to people less affluent is not part of a duty we have.  He believes that the line between duty and charity should be redrawn; that giving to people is a real duty that we have, that we largely ignore.  The first objection is that presenting people with such a large responsibility and such a expanded moral code, and they will not accept any of it.  Singer objects, and says that by merely spreading the idea it gains ground.  The second objection is that by his argument we should be working full-time to make things better.  Singer says that he doesn't necessarily think this is a criticism, he actually embraces the idea, but accepts that it is unrealistic.  The third objection was that overseas aid should be a government area.  He says that this would mean that there are more people who are giving to the private organizations and the government would not feel obligated to pick up any slack.  He says this seems rediculous and that it is much more likely that if nobody gives to private organizations than governments will not feel that citizens believe it is important, and the converse- that if everybody was giving the government would feel that the citizens felt it was very important.  I think that we do have some responsibility to alleviate suffering in the world.  I personally think that we should start with our own country first.  I do not agree with everything he says, I thi