Lorr47
Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Truthiness Which, even if you agree with William Tucker; that's irrelevant to my point, which was simply to refute Hippiekinkster's dramatic but wrong generalization. How does your post refute Hippiekinkter's post? First, Giving to a charity often has nothing to do with the poor especially if the giving is to a Conservative charity . ( Isn't "Conservative charity" an oxymoron?) Secondly, Jim Lindgren in commenting on Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares" states in part: "Written for a general educated audience, the book is quite accessible. Even to someone like me who had discovered some of the patterns that Brooks identifies, I found much that I hadn’t seen or thought about. He is much more sanguine about the good that charitable giving does than I would even dream of being. And I hadn’t considered the benefits to the giver (including developing social capital) that Brooks so enthusiastically endorses. But then, my research focuses more on attitudes, than on self-reported behavior. Brooks' conclusion is based on "self reported behavior." Now all we have to believe is that on any given day and on any given topic Conservatives will remotely tell the truth. Thirdly, another way of interpreting Brooks' analysis is that Conservatives self report such behavior so they can publicly pat themselves on the back. (Brooks' examination of the benefit to the giver.) Now that I can believe. Lastly, even Lindgren is not sold on the effectiveness of giving to a charity; much less a conservative charity. A cynic like me is going to assume that a conservative charity will have a Jack Abramhoff in charge and the conservatives will get the money back somehow behind close doors.
< Message edited by Lorr47 -- 12/28/2008 8:19:26 AM >
|