I plugged my annual salary into this wealth calculator today. Try it out and see where you fall. According to the list, I rank in the top 0.9 percent of the world in terms of income. Granted, I’m only the 54,214,557^th wealthiest individual worldwide, but that’s out of 6,000,000,000 people. Six billion people.

I’m not pointing this out to boast. Why would I, when there are so many people who outrank me? There are plenty of people I know who make more money than I do, much less the 54 million I don’t. What struck me today is just how much I personally take for granted and how much I focus primarily on my own circumstances. (I’m not being humble as an act of self-flagellation–I know lots of us fall into this category, but this raw number really illustrated the point for me.)

My wife and I were talking over the weekend about how much we all tend to focus on what we know, on the things right in front of us. Our immediate field of vision, literally and figuratively, is what concerns us. What does it matter that places such as Darfur (Wikipedia entry) exist when we have tangible distractions that are so much closer to home?

It should mean everything that places like this exist and that we are ignoring the squalor and suffering taking place elsewhere. It’s awfully easy to tune out when the pain and anguish in the world is one remote control click away.

I realize I’m pontificating a bit, and some of that is a result of my own guilt at living in the comfort I do when others would be happy with far less. Is it my place to singlehandedly change all of this? Undoubtedly, no, but it is my place, I think, to think about how I could live my life a little differently. What would my life and our country look like if we kept the rest of the world in mind while we went about our business each day?

I’m excited about the debut of Casino Royale, the latest installment of the James Bond film franchise set to open this Friday.

As I’ve mentioned previously, this reboot of the 007 storyline initially had me concerned, but no longer. From the preview advertisements I’ve seen, Daniel Craig looks to be a convincing and realistic secret agent, and the movie appears to be light on CGI and heavy on characterization and drama. (Well, as heavy as Bond movies get, but the presence of both is saying something).

The initial buzz appears to be very positive and heavy on hyperbole. New Bonds typically receive a similar welcome to newly elected presidents: They get largely warm praise at first, and only in hindsight does the picture become clearer.

Timothy Dalton, perhaps the right Bond at the wrong time, earned a good reception with The Living Daylights in 1987 that soon cooled. Pierce Brosnan was greeted with enthusiastic acclaim that survived his four-film run as Bond despite increasingly weaker scripts. (Sean Connery and Roger Moore obviously were well received in their debuts while George Lazenby was not, but I only saw their debut films in hindsight, not in the theater.)

That leads me to two questions I intend to ponder this week. What film will critics hail Casino Royale as “The Best Bond Since …”? Which actor will Craig be compared to as “The Best Bond Since”? The answer to the latter may be more compelling than the former, but we’ll see. More to come.