We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Over the transom - no idea who wrote this piece (We have posted on this in the past, but I still find it remarkable that self-described Liberals, on average, make more money than self-described Conservatives, yet are far less charitable in their personal lives.):
These are results of a Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks. Brooks, a (now-former) Democrat raised by leftist academic parents, describes himself as a "behavioral economist". He researched ten years of data and scientific surveys to get the true picture of giving in America, and in 2006 he published Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters.
The results of his research shocked him. He says, "I was in the usual box about heritability and compassion.... I figured conservatives were hardheaded, pragmatic, tough-minded but didn't care as much about others and wouldn't donate as much...I figured liberals were softhearted and cared more"
Here are some of the things he found:
- "Conservatives households in America donate 30 percent more money to charity each year than liberal households." (Despite the fact that liberal families make 6 percent more income than conservatives families do, according to Brooks.)
- "If liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45 percent."
- "The average South Dakota family gives away 75 percent more of its household income each year than the average family in San Francisco."
- "Religious people are 21 percent more likely to volunteer in explicitly secular causes."
- People who do not think that "government has a responsibility to reduce income" gives four times more to charity than those who do think so.
- Reports The Post-Standard: "The book's basic findings are that Conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families, and reject the notion that government should engage in income redistributing are the most generous Americans, by any measure."
Brooks' tome has withstood academic scrutiny--and has been supported by data from the nonpartisan Catalogue For Philanthropy [CFP]. CFP's most recent data comes from the last Presidential election year, 2004, when their researchers looked at state-by-state charitable giving. Ranking states by giving as a percentage of income, CFP developed a "Generosity Index" , and guess what? 27 of 28 most charitable states voted for the eeevil George W. Bush. John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts--loaded with wealth Boston liberals, including the Kennedys and Heinz-Kerry--was ranked 49th. Here are the states by ranking:
1 Ms. 11 Wy. 21 Mt. 31 IL. 41 Pa.
2 Ar. 12 Tx. 22 Mo. 32 Me. 42 Mi.
3 Ok. 13 Wv. 23 NM. 33 De. 43 Co.
4 La. 14 Ne. 24 Ak. 34 Wa. 44 Ct.
5 Al. 15 ND. 25 In. 35 Vt. 45 Mn.
6 Tn. 16 NC. 26 NY. 36 Or. 46 Wi.
7 SD. 17 Ks. 27 Ia. 37 Hi. 47 NJ.
8 Ut. 18 Fl. 28 Oh. 38 Va. 48 RI.
9 SC. 19 Ga. 29 Ca. 39 Az. 49 Ma.
10 Id. 20 Ky. 30 Md. 40 Nv. 50 NH.
Journalist Peter Schweizer (who did yeoman's work in uncovering liberal-compassion hypocrisy in his book, (Do As I Say, Not As I Do) tells the story of of Ned Lamont - the ultra-liberal candidate who failed to unseat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut-- in his new book, Makers and Takers:
"According to Lamont's tax return, he made $2.8 million in 2005 and donated $5,385 in charitable contributions (.027 of his income, to be exact). That same year he bought a $1 million piece of art. During the campaign, Lamont talked about the need to raise taxes because the wealthy were not doing enough to help those in need."
Barack Obama was also a charity cheapskate before he started running for President and saying things, "I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit-- the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes... the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room."
The Chicago Tribune found that from 1997 - 2005, despite an income in America's top 2 percent, the Obama's fell well below the U.S. charitable giving average of 2.2 percent of household income. In 2002, the Obama's reported and income of $259,394, claiming $1050 in charitable deductions-- a paltry 0.4 percent of their income. Obama arrived in Washington in 2005, and the couple finally coughed up $60,307 to charity in 2006: $22,500 to Reverend Wright's church, $13,107 to the Congressional black Caucus and $5,000 to the Nuntu Dance Theater, "a south side [Chicago] group that performs contemporary and ancient African dances." How's that laid-off steelworker doing, Barry?
And who can forget Algore's 1997 pitiable charitable contribution of $353, or the tax returns that revealed Bill Clinton "once claimed a $75 deduction for donating a suit with ripped pants to the Salvation Army," according The Chicago Tribune, "as well as $2 for a pair of used underwear and $6 for six pairs of used socks. Contrast this with the nearly $8 million the Cheneys have given since 2000, according to their tax returns, including $7 million (77 percent of their income) given in 2005 alone.
Tax returns show that the Bushes regularly give about 18 percent of their income to charity.
Perhaps we need to examine the possibility that Liberalism by its very nature is driven by character flaws and/or by definite religious beliefs.
1. There is no God.
Corollary: the things of "god" are hateful.
2. There is no "morality".
Corollary1: if opponent or those who access to power believes in a so-called morality, then make use of his or their belief to overcome or deceive. Else, the only rules are those that benefit me.
Corollary 2: There is no Sin. We are only limited by our squeamishness (or vestiges of bourgeoisie upbringing); those who are not so burdened are to be emulated or admired.
Corollary 3: There is no accountability -- except to those more powerful than me.
3. Man is the measure of all things. Man is defined as those who hold the same ideology as me; all others are non-persons.
3. The Law is a tool of Power.
Corollary 1: Law has no objective standard by which it can be measured.
Corollary 2: It is to be used in the advance of the group's or my power and status.
Corollary 3: Law is determined by those who hold the greatest power.
You all can give more.
Yes, there are conservative who hold these positions. And there are fraudulent Christians also.
Liberalism at its core is driven by envy. Envy is the most corrosive and problematic of the deadly sins.
I struggle with maintaining respect for friends and family who stupidly succomb to the siren song of liberalism. I don't understand how anyone with eyes to see and brain to think can suscribe to this nonsense in good faith.
Anyone who goes to a Bible-believing church (and the attenders aren't necessarily all "conservative" but many are), knows that these churches and their members give tremendous time and money to all sorts of missions and charities, religious and secular, from disaster relief to helping build orphanages in Africa and Asia, to adopting unwanted children, to volunteering in the local schools.
Meanwhile, The Episcopal Organization pats itself on the back for lobbying the U.S. government to support the UN Millenium Development Goals, and has committed (but not fulfilled) itself to give a whole .007 of its money to the Millenium Development Goals. Wow! Check this hilarious Episcopal video out, demonstrating their efforts: