Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (12618)	12/11/2007 5:01:18 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Either one is better then any Democrat. Tell me what does Hillary stand for ?

To: pompsander who wrote (12618)	12/11/2007 6:18:56 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 25737

Why Secular Liberals Are So Uncharitable Posted Dec 10th 2007 8:24AM by Dinesh D'Souza Filed under: Christianity, Controversy, Atheism Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic and columnist for Scientific American, and I had our third and final debate for the year at Cal Tech University last night. It was our liveliest, most hard-fought debate yet. More than at thousand people turned out to watch a cordial and yet combative showdown on the questions of "Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil in the World?" and "Can We Be Good Without God?" This debate as well as my debate with Shermer at George Washington University will be posted on the web this week. Shermer raised the question of whether religious people act any differently from non-religious people. He cited a study that showed, for example, that Christian doctors in America are no more likely to donate their time than secular doctors. Actually the secular doctors volunteered a bit more, although the difference was not statistically significant. I argued that Shermer was missing a deeper point. Both the Christian and the secular doctors are the product of a Hippocratic tradition and a Western culture that values human life as precious. These attitudes are the product of Athens and Jerusalem. Athens here refers to classical Greece and Rome, and Jerusalem refers to Judaism and Christianity. Consequently Western doctors are more likely to volunteer their time and to view their work in humanitarian terms than doctors from other cultures. It is only in the West that you have institutions like the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc. It is only in the West that medicine is viewed more as a vocation than as a profession. Even secular doctors in America reflect the values of a culture formed by Christianity. To meet Shermer's broader claim that religious people act no differently from non-religious people I cited Arthur Brooks' recent book Who Really Cares. Brooks, a scholar at Syracuse University, has produced one of the most careful, exhaustive studies of modern philanthropy. He examines the charitable giving of four groups of Americans: religious conservatives, secular conservatives, religious liberals, and secular liberals. He shows that by far the most generous group is religious conservatives. I might have expected secular conservatives to come in second, but no, that honor belongs to religious liberals. Secular conservatives come in third. The least charitable group is the secular liberals. Not only to religious conservatives donate the most money, they also donate the most time, and they are more likely to give to secular causes like the Sierra Club and the United Way. "The evidence leaves no room for doubt," Brooks writes. "Religious people are far more charitable than non-religious people...In years of research, I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people." Brooks gives a telling example. "Families in San Francisco give almost exactly the same amount to charity each year as families in South Dakota--about $1300," Brooks writes. Yet secular San Francisco enjoys almost double the disposable personal income of South Dakota. Brooks calculates that "the average South Dakota family gives away 75 percent more of its household income each year than the average family in San Francisco." Remarkable. The same trend is evident when you compare America with Europe. Europeans are famously stingy and even people earning six-figure incomes rarely give anything to charity. Brooks argues that secular liberals both in America and Europe are so uncharitable because they consider philanthropy to be someone else's responsibility, typically the government's. Yet Brooks sensibly notes that when a government forcibly taxes its citizens and then administers welfare programs the result can hardly be termed "charity" since the "giver" is not contributing voluntarily and the receiver is claiming the benefit not as a gift but as an entitlement. Ironically the secular, upper-middle class people who give so little of their own income and time to charity are quite likely to condemn society for "lacking compassion." As Brooks shows, these hypocrites should worry less about the Bible Belt and reach a little more deeply into their own pockets.

To: pompsander who wrote (12618)	12/11/2007 7:47:52 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Pat saved the punch for last: ...Which brings us to Rudy, the front-runner. His hope: That Huckabee wins Iowa, McCain wins New Hampshire, Romney wins Michigan, and Thompson or McCain wins South Carolina. Then, after four defeats, he comes roaring back in Florida, grabs the headlines going into Feb. 5, when half the primaries are held, and marches forward to the nomination. Whoever thought up this strategy is the kind of guy who plays Russian roulette with four bullets in the chamber. The peril of the Rudy strategy is if a Romney, a Huckabee or a McCain wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and catches a fire no attack ad can put out. Already, Rudy's national lead is vanishing. How he maintains it through December and four straight January losses is, as they say, problematic. ===================================================== Still, ya know... it might just work that way for Rudy. :-) Wonder what happens if it breaks down this way though: Iowa: Huck #1, Romney #2 (& Rudy fourth or even fifth....) New Hampshire: Romney #1... followed by McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, all in a bunch... (& Paul beating Thompson....) Michigan: Huck & Romney & Giuliani all tied up... (who's got the last minute Mo.?) Paul, McCain, Thompson battle for fourth. South Carolina: Huck walks away with a clear #1, Thompson & Romney battle for second and third, Giuliani in fourth position, and Paul and McCain fight for fifth place. Followed by Florida at the end of Jan.: Giuliani #1, Huckabee #2, Romney #3... and McCain, Thompson, Paul This thing could roll on for a long time but, if Huckabee comes in first or second in ALL FOUR of these starting states, I'd expect the momentum to be his at that point... and it might be hard to argue that Rudy had any more momentum then Mitt (to be the main challenger of Huckabee) at that point. Might need for McCain and Thompson to pull-out before this thing can settle in for the final show-down....