One of my pet peeves is the whole concept of a "paid volunteer". There is something about the whole thought that brings up the hair on the back of my neck. How about you? This blog is about my experiences with and about how I feel on the subject. Here goes.
I had a friend who just passed away and the local Priest came and sat with him on several occasions. At the time I thought this was very nice of the Priest to have done this. I know that my friend must have appreciated the concern. Later, I got to thinking about the whole process and changed my mind about the event. Think of it this way. What if the Priest had told my friend when he sad down that he was there because he had been paid good money to be there? He could have, also, added that he was also paid and had been trained to say very professional kind words. He could have further added that he would not have even been a Priest if it were not a paying job because it would have been too hard to have to work to earn the money needed in a regular job to afford all the special cloths and expenses associated with being a Priest.
Would you agree that the Priest was clearly a paid volunteer? I am sure that down in his heart, the Priest wanted to help people, but did not care so much that he would do it with his own money. Are you starting to understand this whole concept of the "paid volunteer"?
How about the school teacher or the nurse who wants to help and spread the word to those "less fortunate" than themselves. Who are these "less fortunate"? Most are those who did not study hard in one of our "free" public schools or who dropped out before graduation. I do not see these people as "less fortunate". I see them as stupid and socially irresponsible. Why don't these paid volunteers state for the record that they have been called to help the "stupid and irresponsible" rather than the "less fortunate"? That would be a lot more logical.
Think of the nurse who goes to Africa to help people there. Do you think this nurse would consider paying their own way there and providing for their own expenses in order to help the "less fortunate"? I don't think so. They want to be called "volunteers", when they are really just paid employees of some group. Again, 99% of the reason that those people in Africa are in need of help is because of their own stupid and irresponsible behavior mostly involving over breeding. Why don't we hear these missionary and nurse types claim that they are addressing Africa's real problem of irresponsible over breeding? That is the reason that they are now in such bad shape.
The other thing that bugs me is that these "paid volunteers" want to get "personal" recognition from those they have been paid to help. An example would be to hand food to a hungry person and then have that person grasp their hand and whisper "how can I thank you?". Why doesn't the paid volunteer refuse the grasp and explain to the person that they are passing out the food because it was the highest paying job they could find?
I can't get over a religion that allows and encourages the "less fortunate" to kiss the ring of the Priest who is a simple paid volunteer. What kind of ego trip is this for a person who is little more than a hired hand and who did not even earn the money to buy the "ring". Does this look as sick to you as it does to me?
If you have been following this logic, it follows that even in politics, we have these paid volunteers. The big difference that I see between the liberals and conservatives in this regard is how they operate. Both seem to be honest in wanting to help the "less fortunate", but the two groups have a little different understanding of the definition of the "less fortunate". Take the people who were caught up in the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930's compared to the drug dealing criminals of Detroit today. A liberal would put these in the same group while the conservative would see them as very different. Further, the liberal would want to help both groups with someone else's money rather than their own. The conservative would tend to help with their own money and favor those from the "Dust Bowl" over those in Detroit.
Society has a responsibility to help those who find themselves in bad shape thru no fault of their own, but to reward irresponsible behavior under the name of the "less fortunate" is the recipe for the destruction of the society as a whole. In this whole process, it is those paid volunteers who are mostly at the root of our problem. Not only are they total phonies, they are morally dishonest and we all need to help "expose" them for what they really are.
PS---When was the last time that a doctor or a nurse told you after an exam that there would be "no charge" because the were personally donating their services?
