For a Better Country We Need More Givers, Fewer Takers
- Print print this page
- Discuss 27 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Recently, I had the pleasure of speaking to the Seven Lakes Kiwanis Club.
As soon as the president opened the meeting, we all stood up and faced the American flag as we recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Then we all sang "God Bless America." A member then offered an invocation - an eloquent prayer that spoke for us all. It has been some time since I shared all of this, and I found it most moving. I was also pleasantly surprised that I remembered all the words.
These pre-meeting ceremonies are not uncommon for organizations like Kiwanis; they are the foundation of what it means to be an American. Of course Kiwanis is international, but this chapter is purely American and is proud of it. These people are givers - volunteers dedicated to changing the world one child and one community at a time.
They are not alone in this altruism; many other organizations share this dedication to giving. Lions, Rotarians, Elks, Moose, Shriners - the list goes on and on. They are worldwide but at the local levels are the backbone and heart of America.
We start our involvement in these ventures at an early age with Cub Scouts and Brownies, Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, 4H and youth church groups. Each is dedicated to helping others and building strong, healthy characters. It is all done without interference or control of the government. And most participants gain moral attributes that live within them all of their lives. They are givers.
I still have fond memories of being a Boy Scout, even though I never came close to Eagle. For a time, I was also a Sea Scout, learning to take a lifeboat out through the breakers. But I have never belonged to any of the adult volunteer organizations, and I feel I may be the loser for that.
Part of the reason is not being too much of a joiner and working in a career that called for many moves and many strange hours. However, I have always had a strong respect for these groups and hope they continue to grow, teach and give.
Americans are a giving society. Extending helping hands comes naturally for most. Nonetheless, we are also experiencing a growth in the takers - those people who look upon America as a land of free entitlements offered by a government that currently wants to take what the givers have earned and pass it on to the takers who have not earned it. Why would a government want to do that? Takers vote.
There is another group of givers, which is quite new. They call themselves tea partiers, and they are growing in number. Why do I call them givers instead of protesters? Because, contrary to what an ultraliberal media would have you believe, they are better educated and higher paid than the takers, so when they descend on Washington, they are giving of themselves with no expectation of entitlements.
The ultraleft is beginning to take note of the tea parties and is pulling out all stops to try to combat them. Then there is President Obama, who with a smug smirk said he was "amused" by them and they should thank him for lowering their taxes.
I, for one, found that insult sickening. It seems that the biggest weapon in their arsenal is the smug smirk. Honest disagreement is very American and should be encouraged. However, sleazy Chicago politics should be rooted out, and those who adhere to it thrown out.
Let's be fair. Not every non-giver is a taker. Some are deservers who need to be singled out and helped. Let us do so. And let us cheer the volunteers who are the engines of this republic. Let us pledge our allegiance with hand over heart and head held high. Let us thank the givers and scorn the takers and know the difference.
Allan Jefferys, a former New York theater critic and newsman, lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at oldjeff@embarqmail.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
GoldenDreams 3 years ago
Mr. Jefferys, you have made some good points and you are no doubt a patriot. I totally agree with you that our volunteers "are the engines of this republic." Well said. But to call tea partiers givers is where we part company. From what I've read and seen on TV, they seem anxious to get their picture in the paper and will try anything to get noticed. It's when their antics turn ugly that I turn my head. I've seen a lady with a monkey around her neck telling the President to go home. I've seen another picture of Obama with a white face (what that's supposed to mean, I'm not sure, but it's still not entirely accurate). The list goes on and on. So I ask you, are these people givers? And what exactly are they giving?
Ross 3 years ago
As usual. Jefferys column rambles and criticizes the "evil" left. I truly wonder how he acquired the privilege to write a column on politics.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
When the TPers start turning in their Medicare cards and sending back their Social Security checks, I'll start calling them "givers".Until then, they're hypocrites whose credo is "health care and other benefits for me and not for thee."
TheNeedle 3 years ago
I think we all know which "takers" Mr. Jefferys is complaining about.
LucilleGreybone 3 years ago
OBAMA FANBOY. same old smug smirky lefty tone in your post just like mr jeffreys mentions in his piece.
people who contribute to ss and mc should receive it. wow i come before e except after c. maybe im not so stupid and country after all. maybe i am. maybe i like it.
TheNeedle 3 years ago
Goodness, who relieved themselves in Lucille's cornflakes to make her so angry?
OldSpook 3 years ago
Thank you Mr. Jefferys for your balance to a different opinion writers leftist views. I'm sure our Comrade will weigh in with his diatribe lamenting the evil ways of anyone not embracing Obamaism's and the party's doctrine. I appreciate your statement that Americans are givers. I firmly believe this statement to be true both at the Federal and personal levels. I know of no one who takes exception to giving anyone a hand up. However, how many of us take exception to giving anyone a hand out? There is a difference.
Fust an FYI, I recall the Obama white face message is a reference to Heath Richards character The Joker in Batman.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Heath Ledger, actually.
And I think it's kind of sweet the way you think of me all the time.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Can narcissism be treated?
OldSpook 3 years ago
Now, we poke some fun at Mr. Rhodes just has he takes his pokes at us. However, as legal fees are not just chicken feed and the economy gone sour I'm sure Dusty (if I may) works a considerable amount of cases Pro Bono. And nobody’s going to crow about that.
OldSpook 3 years ago
Sorry, meant to say that his working Pro Bono IS something to crow about!
coffecreme 3 years ago
Yup Chuck you are so right.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
We should have nipped things long ago...
Satch2929 3 years ago
The takers surely are bankrupting this country! The government is removing all incentives to be a giver. What happens when we have more takers than givers?
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Satch, can you be more specific about who you define as "takers"? Which people are you talking about?
TheNeedle 3 years ago
Given that Mr. Jefferys appears to be retired from his former profession as a critic (a parasitic profession if ever there was one) I suspect that he's one of the people "taking" right now.
It's a well known fact that the elderly draw out of Social Security and Medicare more than they paid in over their lifetimes.
Satch2929 3 years ago
Ah... leading question? Not going to bite on that one. I am confident there are scores of people out there that are cognizant of who the takers are. I would however, like an answer on the latter question.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
satch, "can you be more specific" is not a leading question, it's open ended. Why won't you tell us who you mean?
TheNeedle 3 years ago
Oh, we all know who Satch2929 means, don't we? She just can't think of a genteel way to say what she means, which is anyone with skin darker than hers.
Of course, if I'm wrong and just "playing the race card" I'm sure Satch2929 will set me straight by actually TELLING us who she means.
If she continues to evade, then we'll know she's just another racist without the courage to admit it.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Hey Needle that comment was very telling.
TheNeedle 3 years ago
As is Satch2929's silence.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Just like DR's silence when he was asked a question on a similiar issue. Gotcha.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
similar
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Which question do you contend I haven't answered, Wieselhunden?
Satch2929 3 years ago
The thought of "skin darker than hers" never crossed my mind at all. It's very amusing that such an assumption could be made. Oh what a feeding frenzy!!!
TheNeedle 3 years ago
Then correct my assumption, please. Answer DR's question. Who are the 'takers" you're so coy about identifying?
OldSpook 3 years ago
Could "takers" be defined as persons who believe they are entitled to public assistance at the working persons expense?
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Yeah, you'd think that would be obvious, but as per usual, they're just trying to deviate from the subject at hand to stir the pot.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
They certainly could, OldSpook, but I'm still waiting for Satch to tell us who she really means. And why she "won't bite" when asked a simple question.
But let's address your definition for a moment. Do you have any data on how many people on some form of public assistance or another feel they're "entitled" to it, rather than who are on it because they truly need it? It's all well and good to gripe about people who feel "entitled", but really, how do you convert that to a public policy?
This is the problem with grousing about 'takers', if you refuse to identify specifically who you're talking about. First, you create the impression that you're engaging in thinly disguised racism (aka called "dog whistling"), which is only exacerbated by comments along the lines of "you guys know who I mean, wink wink" . Even without that, it's just vague, empty grumbling.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
", they're just trying to deviate from the subject at hand to stir the pot."
Right. Asking for a definition of who exactly you're talking about is "deviating from the subject at hand."
Duck and dodge, Weiselhunden, duck and dodge...it's all you do when you're not outright lying about what people have said.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
That's your M.O. DR.
"And why she "won't bite" when asked a simple question."
Sounds like you.
OldSpook 3 years ago
DR Okay, I think I can see your point as outlined in your 3rd paragraph. Can we agree that a taker would defined as any able bodied person capable of engaging in either physical or mental activities but chooses to refrain from such activity in favor of a more financially beneficial offering from a government? Yea, quite a mouthful but until we can agree upon what the baseline definition is for a "taker" the insinuations will only continue.
As for the public policy…Good Lord man, can anyone of us mere mortals make sense of “Public Policy”?;^) Perhaps this is another area that could be examined. As for what Satch “really” means I cannot say but I do believe that Satch is innocent of any politically incorrect intentions until proven otherwise. I have not read where Satch singles out any flavor of the human race other than the “takers”, which has yet to be defined.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Needle-"I think we all know which "takers" Mr. Jefferys is complaining about." Please enlighten us.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
...any able bodied person capable of engaging in either physical or mental activities but chooses to refrain from such activity in favor of a more financially beneficial offering from a government-OldSpook
Bingo.
Every day in every state. If their income is counted against their welfare check or benefits, heck, in their mind it is more beneficial for them not to work. The government has enabled them to be dependent.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
"Sounds like you."
Weiselhunden, you've already been proven a liar on this subject, why do you keep telling the lie?
For those not familiar, Weiselhunden claimed in another thread that I was saying "anyone but Obama supporters were racists and liars" then tried to backpedal and weasel away from his words because, he said, he'd phrased his claim in the form of a question. (thus the name Wieselhunden).
He then went around saying I hadn't answered the question. When I showed him where I had, indeed, explicitly addressed this by saying 'no, I'm not saying that,but I'm calling you a liar" and showed that he was, in fact, lying AGAIN, he got all pouty and slunk off.
Now he continues to repeat the lie.
If you read anything this person claims about what someone supposedly said, or if he claims someone is not answering his question, you cannot, repeat cannot, believe it. He misquotes, he twists words, he outright lies, then tries to act as if it never happened.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
"Can we agree that a taker would defined as any able bodied person capable of engaging in either physical or mental activities but chooses to refrain from such activity in favor of a more financially beneficial offering from a government?"
Sure...if your definition of "capable" also includes the situation where there just isn't any paying "mental or physical activity" available. But then you get into the criteria and mechanism for identifying who is 'capable' what it would take to make them 'capable', whether they've "chosen" to refrain from "activity", etc.
The real word, alas, is more complicated than a message board argument.
(Weiselhunden will no doubt now claim I'm ignoring the question).
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Some people need & claim disability benefits. Many people fraudulently collect (takers). Disability can be deemed physical or mental.
TheNeedle 3 years ago
"Needle-"I think we all know which "takers" Mr. Jefferys is complaining about." Please enlighten us. "
toofle, please read my comments in the rest of the thread. You will find the enlightenment you seek there--if such a thing is possible for you.
This constant demand for people to restate what has already been said makes you extremely tiresome.