Charitable giving

This is an interesting piece...

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

Article Tools Sponsored By
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 20, 2008

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof
On the Ground

Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.
Go to Columnist Page »

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.

So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.

Truth or Fiction?

If you have time, watch this...

Canada's Military a laughing stock of the world?

BCTF Social Justice 12 presentation

Commentary by Ron Gray

Feb. 20 and 21, I attended the first "Social Justice conference" staged by the BC Teachers' Federation at University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotford.

It was an eye-opener!

Although the stated purpose of the conference was to show teachers how to approach the Social Justice 12 curriculum adopted under BC's Corren Settlement Agreement, an underlying purpose was clearly revealed by a graphic of a staircase, distributed by the BCTF in its information packages: the goal is to move students' attitude towards LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning) people beyond "tolerance" to "acceptance" - and then further along to "support," "admiration," "appreciation" and finally "celebration" of deviant sexuality.

Most Canadians have never seen what constitutes "celebration" of homosexuality, but our big cities' annual "Gay Pride" parades clearly show the reality: public nudity (partial and/or total), simulated fornication, lasciviousness - and open mockery of traditional morality.

This exposure of the BCTF's real goal - to manipulate the attitudes of students until the "Prescribed Learning Outcome" of celebration is attained - reveals that the teachers' union is actually in violation of its own code of ethics, which forbids using the classroom for indoctrination.

What has given the BCTF this extraordinary power to manipulate the attitudes of BC's children? The cowardice of a pusillanimous government, and especially of two cabinet ministers - Education Minister Shirley Bond and Attorney-General Wally Oppal - who reached a secret agreement with two homosexual activists without ever allowing debate in the Legislature.

Those same ministers have consistently resisted efforts by parents' groups to have a countervailing voice in the education of their children on sensitive topics.

This BCTF conference similarly lacked any opportunity for input from parents who want to resist manipulation of their children's curriculum to make acceptance of homosexuality a goal.

The February conference was the first of four planned to train BC teachers how to implement the Correns' 'Social Justice 12' curriculum. It did not deal with the companion - and more radical - teacher's guide "Making Space, Giving Voice," which the Correns were able to force on a supine Ministry of Education. "Making Space, Giving Voice" instructs teachers how to make every subject, at every level from Kindergarten to Grade 12, 'gay'-friendly.

In one workshop, a teacher suggested that if a student says his or her parents disapprove of homosexual behaviour, he (the teacher) deflects the comment by saying, "Well, different people have different ideas about sex."

"That won't accomplish the kind of change we need," said Dr. Martha Dow, a professor in the Department of Social, Cultural and Media Studies at UFV. "Students feel silenced by that kind of comment. 'What does everybody think?' is a bigoted comment. We need to decide who we want silenced."

So such students are to be told that their parents' ideas are wrong. Perhaps not all parents: Prof. Dow repeatedly identified "Evangelicals and Fundamentalists" as the perceived problem.

That theme recurred in several sessions. The result of the BCTF's unilateral advocacy that "gay is good" can only be to drive a wedge between children and their parents. And the long-term social result of that alienation would be worse than the problems they are trying to correct.

However, the BCTF apparently operates on the assumption that they are in possession of an absolute truth - even though peer-reviewed science has discredited every claim of discovery of a "gay gene"; and even though medical studies indicate that homosexual behaviour shortens life expectancy dramatically. To "true believers" in the BCTF dogma, such facts are apparently irrelevant.

Their position is essentially religious - a fact that was vividly highlighted by a teacher who said in a Friday workshop, "I don't think I can teach this without being converted."

The conference was lamentably short on factual information-but presenters were quite willing to reiterate falsehoods, like the "10 percent myth," based on the discredited 1948 and 1953 Reports of self-styled "sexologist" Alfred Kinsey. (Kinsey alleged that 10 percent of the population is homosexual; however the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey showed that only one percent of the population identify themselves as homosexual.)

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, revealed that Kinsey's "research" included criminal sexual abuse of infants, and that a substantial part of his survey population was drawn from prison inmates and 'gay' bars-but they were represented by Kinsey as typical of the whole population. Kinsey himself was a homosexual who died from orchitis, an inflammation of the testes often caused by excessive sexual self-abuse.

Keynote speaker, Alex Sanchez, brought in from Florida to deliver a message called "Faith and Spirituality", claims to be a 'gay' Christian. He said in one of his workshops: "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality." Of course, that's utterly untrue: Jesus affirmed every jot and tittle of the Mosaic Law, which includes explicit prohibitions against sodomy.

Referring to the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 18:22, one participant asked me, "So, does that give you the right to stone me?"

"No," I answered. "For two reasons: one is that the same Torah says there must be at least two eyewitnesses - 'You shall not put a man to death on the testimony of one witness' - and because you say you're trusting Jesus for your salvation … and He died to pay the penalty for your sins and mine. But just as with the adulterous woman, He says, 'I don't condemn you; go and sin no more.'"

The conference was not without merit: participating teachers were given some useful tips on correcting students who use slurs or bully other students.

But the underlying theme - BCTF's absolute certainty that only their pro-'gay' dogma is correct, and they have the right to impose it on BC's children because "we're professional educators" - was terrifying: such use of government power to compel conformity is the very essence of fascism.

(Ron Gray is a former journalist and was a member of the founding administration of Fraser Valley College, the forerunner of University of the Fraser Valley. He is currently Vice-President of Parents for Democracy in Education.)

I will let you be the judge on this one

Amazing 12 year old

Here is a 12 year old girl, who is able to say what Obama has such a hard time arguing.



She mentions how only 1% of abortions are from rape, etc. To accept it just for that purpose is hardly justifiable. Why take a terrible situation and make it more terrible.

It will take a many days before the world, especially the priests (ie. scientists) to figure out that we are not god and that we can not take life and make life as we please.

Only in Japan

I have heard of a dragonfly, and even a housefly, but I have never heard of a bra for men. That's right folks, Japan has introduced a new line of underwear - BRA's for MEN. You may remember a Seinfeld segment about the brassiere or mansierre, but this was for men with larger bosoms. But not in Japan, this is for men as underwear, to feel support? Well actually, it has become one of the top items for cross dressers.

Obama, All at Sea

For those who missed this article by Mark Styen, it is a beauty. Does anyone else wonder what the great President of "change" is up to next. Ranting about acting now, or we will be in an utter catastrophe! I just want to point out, I have never backed this "yes we can" attitude and "Washington doesn't change the people, the people change Washington" rhetoric.

This poor guy has gone way over his head. You can see it in him, he is stressed out. And why wouldn't he be. His $900 Billion stimulus package isn't making it through Senate. Not a single Republican voted for it in the House and now the Senate is doing the same thing. But what I don't get is that the Senate could pass this bill today, with the help of 1 or 2 Republicans, but it seems the Senate fears this. They want to hook more Republicans into it, so they can share the blame for the failure of this package.

This isn't an economic stimulus, this is a socialist stimulus. Spend billions to create new programs, take responsibility away from the people and let the government take care of everyone's needs. He is even going to chase away big corporations. Limiting their cap on executive payouts, but even there, there are loop holes.

Well I guess if you are going to fail, might as well fail with a bang!

Come on down to the farm

This is what I am talking about!

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, slate it up to irreconcilable differences, and go our own ways.

Here is a model dissolution agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell (you are however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan Hockey Moms, greedy CEO's, and Rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran, Palestine, and France, and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protestors. When our allies or way of life are under assault, we'll provide them job security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian Values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru Station Wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare, if you can find any practicing Doctors (that is practicing, Howard Dean) who will follow to your turf (sic). We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and The National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach The World To Sing, Kum Ba Ya, or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics, and you can give trickle up poverty its best shot.

Since it often so offends you we'll keep our History, our Name, and our Flag.
Would you agree to this?

In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR on who will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student, American

P.S. Please take Barbra Streisand.

P.P.S. We will keep all oil rigs offshore, all oil refineries, all big oil companies and exploration teams. You can keep your windmills and solar panels.

Global Warming - Nice try Al Gore!

That's what seems to be the word on the street. You see it all over America (not so much in Canada, as it is still a politically correct issue) in Alaska, and now we get the founder of the weather channel, who once again blasts Al Gore for his Global Warming hoax and calls it the "greatest scam in history." Read the report here on fox.

I thought I was nuts because it seemed that everyone was falling for this global warming scheme and I just didn't buy it. Now I see that "we" are making headlines. Maybe there is hope, and instead of spending billions of dollars on the earth, maybe we can spend that money on healthcare and other necessary things.

DISCLAIMER: I am for cleaning up of our pollutants, but to call CO2 the gas to end the world as we know it is just plan rediculous.

Free Speech - but let's get rid of Rush Limbaugh

Is free speech going to be taken away in the states? Well if Barack Obama has his way, than yes! See this guy wants everyone to like him. So to get that feeling he must silence those who don't. I thought Canada was the only crazy country that didn't allow an open democracy? Well, atleast we have friends down south now. Read the article here at CitizenLink

As Intolerant as I am, This is an interesting post...from a homosexual

Now being the "homophobe" (which in-itself does not make any sense, I am not scared of homosexuals!) that I am, it really surprised me that there are homosexuals out there that are politically on the same page as I am? Read the article here.