Complacency will destroy change and its message. Americans should constantly and continually challenge the political establishment they have just shaken up.
Even just five years ago, it probably seemed very unlikely that a black person would ever become President of the United States. But in a landslide victory over Arizona Senator John McCain, Barack Obama has been elected the nation's 44th President.…
Article comments
126 - Cindy D
RE: #112 by Dave
Well, let's start out with this fact. There is a close correlation between charitable giving and voting patterns.
Not so fast Dave, Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College (CWP-Boston) challenged the Catalogue for Philanthropy's (CFP) analysis of the data you present there in your link.
CWP-Boston objected to the analysis saying it didn't account for differences in cost of living, among other things. They reanalyzed the data, based on available disposable income, and discovered that, for example, New York gave more of a percentage of its disposable income as measured by income tax data.
CWP-Boston also objected to the name "Generosity Index", as being imprecise and misleading, they named their own report "Charitable Giving Indices".
See the very last page of this PDF for the chart:
CWP Measure 4 of Giving Relative to Income Ranked by State, 2004
From the chart, here are the top ten CWP-Boston Rankings relative to income:
1) New York
2) District of Columbia
3) Utah
4) California
5) Connecticut
6) Maryland
7) New Jersey
8) Georgia
9) Massachusetts
10) Hawaii
Reply from CFP (the source of your data) to CWP-Boston about CWP-Boston's new report and reanalysis:
What the Report finds objectionable and attributes to the Generosity Index (GI) is not the GI, but the media’s interpretation of it"a distinction of which the Report is evidently unaware....As we have said many hundreds of times (cf. the 2005 Catalogue, p. 6 and on this website [link]) the GI does not claim to measure or compare the philanthropic generosity of people in various states; we have no interest in that, and in any case believe it cannot validly be done, because it is too complex a subject and existing data is inadequate. The Report attempts to do it, and shows by its own example that assertions on this subject are only estimates, not facts.
So Dave, not only is it misleading to take that interpretation as "fact". The organization that created the study says that it does not measure what you are claiming it does.
127 - Cindy D
Correction RE: My #126
Make that:
"The organization that created the study says that it does not measure what you are claiming it does--i.e.: correlation between voting patterns and charitable giving."
Further, CWP-Boston demonstrates that when adjusted for disposable income, the picture of charitable giving in the CFP analysis are not the last word on the subject.
128 - Lisa Solod Warren
Yes but this was directed at Clav who said there were violent posts.
Too bad Chris, there is some excellent writing there....
129 - Dave Nalle
I don't understand either the assertion that liberalism has nothing to offer or that it is usually accompanied by elitism.
I don't either, Christopher. I think these statements from Les and Clavos are based on the common misuse of the term 'liberal' here in the US, which may not be the same in the UK or elsewhere.
Dave
130 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, the CFP study is a very 'gross' study. It's so generalized that trying to use it as a detailed analysis of anything is relatively worthless. However, in the context of the much more detailed study I referenced later in my content the suggestion is that the gross conclusions reached by many based on the CFP study would appear to be fairly accurate, regardless of their own unwillingness to stand by those conclusions or the efforts of others to counter them. When multiple different types of analysis using different data reach the same conclusion, there's something to it.
Dave
131 - Cindy D
RE: #130
Dave, I did not look at your later study. (Too much effort looking at your first one! LOL) Maybe I'll get a chance to do that. If I don't get interested in something else. Which it looks like I will, because,
I would like to do my own rough disambiguation regarding liberal, conservative, blah, blah, blah.
I will semi-agree with one thing you said in #129. When you are referencing "liberal", it seems you are looking at the term based on classical liberalism and neoliberalism. But, most people here, it seems to me, are presenting themselves as social liberals, without necessarily referencing classical liberalism or neoliberalism.
And I disagree about your understanding of what Les said. I am only guessing, but I would wager that Les is using liberalism just the way you are. That is why he can take that position against it. One I myself would take.
Clav, I would guess, would support liberalism in the sense you mean it. And I would wager he is against social liberalism.
132 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, the first report was all of a page and a half long. Hard to believe that exhausted you.
I agree that it's possible that Les is opposed to classical liberalism. I'm not surprised that you're opposed to it, given your totalitarian tendencies.
I won't speak for Clav, but I'm for liberalism on social issues, but don't think we should be liberal with our money - or that of the taxpayers - in the most classical and non political sense of liberal.
Dave
133 - Les Slater
Cindy,
"And I disagree about your understanding of what Les said."
You may disagree, but Dave does understand. He disagrees with my use of the terms liberal and liberalism. I can't argue with him there. Of course I was using it in the sense that McCain might call Obama a liberal. He also disagrees with my general framework and conclusions.
Dave and I believe in some basic concepts of classical liberalism, but not all.
Clav understands both my use of the term 'liberal' and I believe, the general political thrust of my 124.
The Democratic Party has NEVER been progressive. The end of anything progressive with capitalism itself ended with the defeat of radical reconstruction.
Les
134 - Clavos
And I would wager he [Clav] is against social liberalism.
I'll bet I would surprise you, Cindy. If you're interested, tell me your concept of social liberalism, and I'll respond, point-by-point.
135 - Cindy D
Dave,
Cindy, the first report was all of a page and a half long. Hard to believe that exhausted you.
I spent about an hour and a half researching its validity and reading about it and the other study I cited. So, be careful about your assumptions. I didn't read it an react.
136 - Les Slater
Clav,
"There was a deep radicalization."
Just as I hit the 'Publish' button for my last reply to Cindy, I was reminded that the 'radicalization' went far beyond those social movements I mentioned, which started in the 40's. Culture, including music, were part of that radicalization.
Just as I hit the 'Publish' button, 'Pull my Strings' by the 'Dead Kennedys' came through my headphones from my internet 'radio' station.
Les
137 - Clavos
Culture, including music, were part of that radicalization.
Perhaps even the greatest part of it, especially the music. I'm old enough to remember the very first stirrings of "Rock 'n Roll" (as it was known then), and even before, the melding of rockabilly and traditionally Black only music. It was that blending that effected the 'crossover," attracting white kids like me. And yes, we did hear the music, even in Mexico.
If my parents' opinion from back then is to be believed, it was definitely the music that radicalized the whole culture. :>)
138 - Jet
Les "I for one could not see any good reason for anybody preferring Kerry over Bush in 2004."
Unfortunately Les, it took the country a while to catch up to us... the reason for supporting Kerry was that he WASN'T Bush.
Turns out we were right.
139 - Jet
I've yet to meet a conservative that I could nail down a specific definition of the term "Liberal."
As far as I can tell they have no clue as to what one is, other than it's a term like "Boogie Man," something "Evil-or an evildoer".
The term is usually used as a vague insult such as "He's a Liberal!" "Those liberal is congress will be the downfall of our democracy" and the ever popular The "Liberal Press" much as one would call someone a faggot, or a nigger-without actually getting to know the person that just spat the word at.
Truth be told the honorable word (As in Liberal College)(Liberal Arts degree) has completely lost its meaning, and very few who are right of center actually have a specific idea when they screw up their face as if they'd just eaten a lemon and spew out, "That... that... uh Liberal!" ewwwwwww.
140 - Les Slater
Jet,
"Unfortunately Les, it took the country a while to catch up to us... the reason for supporting Kerry was that he WASN'T Bush."
You really liked Kerry? I don't mean voted for him, or even did your best to get others to vote for him, but liked him.
Unfortunately Jet, we never had the opportunity to find out how different he would have been from Bush.
We got Obama now, let's hope we learn something this time.
Les
141 - Jet
I campaigned for him and was pissed when he didn't support his vice presidential candidate John Edwards.
142 - Clavos
I campaigned for him and was pissed when he didn't support his vice presidential candidate John Edwards.
How prescient of him...
143 - Jet
Well Clavos? Specifically define what a Liberal is, you use the term enough...
144 - Les Slater
Jet,
You campaigned for Kerry, but did you like him?
Les
145 - Jet
Les, Kerry has a carisma(sic) that captures you. I met him in person on a campaign through Columbus.
He'd found out that I'd purchased a couple gross of "Farenheit 911" DVDs and was handing them out at the local gay bars. The head of the Ohio Democratic Party invited me to meet him with about 15-20 other campaign workers just before he was to give a speech.
Yes, I liked him, you don't run for president unless you're likeable and meeting a candidate in person definately has that effect on people.
146 - Les Slater
Ok, you're the first one I've heard that from.
I know a woman who is very critical of Bill Clinton's policies but when she met him she just melted.
I could see that in Clinton, even from afar, but Kerry? I believe you though.
147 - Clavos
...you use the term enough...
But not in this thread, Jet.
However, I do use the term often in reference to myself. I am, for example, in favor of gay marriage, abortion for no more reason than convenience (or no reason at all), the legalization of drugs, the granting of legal status (but not citizenship) to all illegal immigrants, anti racism, pro feminism, pro equality of opportunity, etc. etc.
It's all about context, Jet.
148 - Cindy D
RE #132
Dave,
I'm not surprised that you're opposed to it [classical liberalism], given your totalitarian tendencies.
Well, I'm not actually Dave, not the way Chomsky would understand classical liberalism. I'm only opposed to it as it has been shallowly construed to defend a system its originators could not have foreseen would exist. In other words, its normal construction is to have it defend industrialized capitalism. I don't think the writers of the time would have done that, I think they would be against it.
What I was doing was trying to guess at various people's meanings. It didn't serve to disambiguate, but only to confuse more...at least it confused me more. I still don't really understand, for example, what Les means by classical liberalism. I have no idea what Clav or you mean by social liberalism.
As far as MY "totalitarian tendencies":
Your entire belief system distorts any idea of freedom in my view. It's is the opposite of what it claims to be. That's why you have to distort reality in order to oblige your view. Look at the reality of commoditizing people under Capitalism. People as commodities? That's freedom? Your beliefs are based on something imaginary--they rely on pretending that something that does not exist (free markets) does exist.
You want to believe you are for freedom and in order to do so, you will have to uphold this idea that Capitalism provides "freedom of opportunity". Where you are then obliged to explain the inequality that results from state interference in markets to effect the protection of Capital wealth, as being actually caused by something else. Let's see...it's the fault of those on the bottom. You have to hold the poor in contempt for their lot in order to justify that capitalism is fine and working. After all, with such freedom available something must be wrong with the people who do not take advantage of it.
You claim not to support the state, but your whole system requires a big state. Classical liberal writers would not have supported corporatism. These thinkers did not anticipate corporations being given rights that surpass those of even people. They were writing about human beings. You do support it Dave, and so do the people who have defined, in the normal usage "classical liberalism".
149 - Les Slater
Cindy,
Your last paragraph is close to my view on classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was quite radical, and progressive, when compared to feudalism and theocracy.
At the time Adam Smith wrote 'Wealth of Nations' the term 'capitalism' was not used. Smith used 'system of perfect liberty' or 'system of natural liberty'. This was at the beginning of industrial capitalism and we have learned much since.
It was Marx that pointed out the NECESSITY of the inherent conflict between capital and the working class. This conflict has proven to be both true and necessary. The only way to end this conflict is to end the reign of capital.
Les
150 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Back to your 'charitable giving' - I think it's already been established that religious offerings are counted in those statistics (because that's how the government totals the amount given to charities, through the income tax statements), thereby skewing the totals strongly towards the conservatives.
Why did I say 'skew'?
You implied it yourself, that charity is almost a duty. HOWEVER, to Christians, we give what's in our heart - and if we give nothing, then we have nothing in our hearts. In other words, our Church offerings truly ARE a duty...which means Church offerings are NOT a 'charity' and should not be counted as such. Furthermore, one's Church offerings should not be given with the expectation of a financial benefit come tax return time...but if you count your offerings as 'charity' on your taxes, that is PRECISELY what you are doing - expecting a partial pecuniary return on your offerings.
A Christian who offers nothing (when he has something to give) is NOT a Christian...which makes it a DUTY, and NOT a 'charity'.
As I've often said, I'm a devout Christian, and I do NOT count my offerings as charity. In fact, that is the doctrine of the Church of which I am a member - we are not to list our Church offerings as 'charity' on our income tax.
Take away all the religious offerings out of the 'charity' reported to the government...and all of a sudden you'll see a FAR different scenario. Why do I know this? Read the Combined Federal Campaign booklet - you'll see that the great majority of the charities are ones that liberals like myself would favor.
151 - Ms. Know
I feel that history was made yes, but what about our country? We have left-wing illuminati officials in leadership with no experience, and that will be a big consequence will pay dearly for.