Friends -
Last year, I began an "online red kettle" fund-raising effort for the Salvation Army, and just barely made my goal of $300.
This year I got cocky. I raised my goal to $500 and started the effort three weeks sooner than I did last year.
So far I have been overwhelmed by the response, and have already reached 80% of my goal with a month and a half left of the effort.
If you are so inclined to help me with my effort, please visit http://onlineredkettle.org/chriskling and make a donation of any size. While it seems likely that I will surpass my personal goal, I'm excited by the fact that I'll have to RAISE my goal again next year.
Every penny raised by me for the Salvation Army Online Red Kettle Fund goes directly to the Salvation Army. I do not receive a penny in compensation, there are no incentives or prizes being rewarded for MY effort of begging e-mailbox to e-mailbox.
Just the satisfaction that I was able to do something to help - and I did.
Thank you in advance for your generous and (so far) still tax-deductible gift.
Chris Kling
Showing posts with label Chris Kling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Kling. Show all posts
Friday, November 23, 2012
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Essay: Robbing from the rich to give to the poor...
by Chris Kling; writer, columnist, poet and songwriter on Thursday, April 21, 2011
"There's two sides to every coin". How often have you heard that?: Let's look at a fistful of coins I've got in mind right now:
Rich/Poor
Haves/Have-nots
Producers/Consumers
Givers/Takers
Which one in each of these pairings would you like to belong to? Would you really truly prefer to be a poor, have-not, who only can only consume that which you take from others? Or is it truly noble to be a producer, to have wealth - wealth being the benefit and reward for that which you have produced - so that you can freely give to those truly in need?IF you have honestly answered that you're happy being poor, having nothing of your own, consuming only that which other people give to you, then I pity you.But - if you have answered, "Who wouldn't want to be rich, able to reap the rewards of producing something everyone else wants, and be able to give freely to others?"... well, then, I've got to ask: are you one of the progressive liberals clamoring to tax the rich more so you can give to the poor? Or are you someone who understands that in order to achieve that wealth, then you will have to focus like a laser-beam upon reaching that goal?I can't understand the mind-set of someone who wants to demonize CEOs but also idolizes movie and music stars. I get thoroughly confuzzled by the people who say "you're too rich, GIVE ME MORE!" And I get embarrassed by rich people who try to tell middle-class people to sacrifice. (Remember Barbra Streisand's hypocrisy in 2003? http://www.counterpunch.org/clarke05312003.html)
What has happened to the nobility of rewarding success? Has it disappeared simply because every kid who plays on the little league team gets a trophy - even though the team finished in last place? Has it disappeared because the value of an A has dropped in reality to what a C was 25 years ago? Has the value of success deflated like it has because even folks on welfare get big screen TVs and iPads and droid phones? Or - has the decreasing value of success been the result of people getting Nobel Peace Prizes because of the promise of success without ever having to deliver that success?I dunno. But I must admit, I'm still waiting for my Grammy.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/chris-kling-writer-columnist-poet-and-songwriter/essay-robbing-from-the-rich-to-give-to-the-poor/217511661598217
Rich/Poor
Haves/Have-nots
Producers/Consumers
Givers/Takers
Which one in each of these pairings would you like to belong to? Would you really truly prefer to be a poor, have-not, who only can only consume that which you take from others? Or is it truly noble to be a producer, to have wealth - wealth being the benefit and reward for that which you have produced - so that you can freely give to those truly in need?IF you have honestly answered that you're happy being poor, having nothing of your own, consuming only that which other people give to you, then I pity you.But - if you have answered, "Who wouldn't want to be rich, able to reap the rewards of producing something everyone else wants, and be able to give freely to others?"... well, then, I've got to ask: are you one of the progressive liberals clamoring to tax the rich more so you can give to the poor? Or are you someone who understands that in order to achieve that wealth, then you will have to focus like a laser-beam upon reaching that goal?I can't understand the mind-set of someone who wants to demonize CEOs but also idolizes movie and music stars. I get thoroughly confuzzled by the people who say "you're too rich, GIVE ME MORE!" And I get embarrassed by rich people who try to tell middle-class people to sacrifice. (Remember Barbra Streisand's hypocrisy in 2003? http://www.counterpunch.org/clarke05312003.html)
What has happened to the nobility of rewarding success? Has it disappeared simply because every kid who plays on the little league team gets a trophy - even though the team finished in last place? Has it disappeared because the value of an A has dropped in reality to what a C was 25 years ago? Has the value of success deflated like it has because even folks on welfare get big screen TVs and iPads and droid phones? Or - has the decreasing value of success been the result of people getting Nobel Peace Prizes because of the promise of success without ever having to deliver that success?I dunno. But I must admit, I'm still waiting for my Grammy.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/chris-kling-writer-columnist-poet-and-songwriter/essay-robbing-from-the-rich-to-give-to-the-poor/217511661598217
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
