Leftist Men Weaklings, Those on the Right Stronger

[hal lillywhite]

I'm not sure I believe this is really significant but it is
interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html

Physically weak men tend to like the welfare state while those with
more upper body strength tend more to freedom.

Make of it what you will.

[Joe Dixon]

Yes, I used to think like this when I was young and strong then I got old
and had a heart attack. Let's just say it gave me a new perspective on
life.

[hal lillywhite]

The part of that article that I really question is the claim that
strong men don't like the welfare state because they don't need help.
That implies that they are willing to let others do without. Yet
political "conservatives," at least in the US, are much more
charitable than are the so-called liberals (though most but not all of
that difference is related to religious belief. see the book, Who
Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:3f30ce61-ffd6-4400...@oy9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

>The part of that article that I really question is the claim that
>strong men don't like the welfare state because they don't need help.
>That implies that they are willing to let others do without. Yet
>political "conservatives," at least in the US, are much more
>charitable than are the so-called liberals (though most but not all of
>that difference is related to religious belief. see the book, Who
>Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks.

=========
Some myths take significant creative effort to invent. Arthur C. Brooks is
evidently such a brilliantly creative force. While attempting to spread his
superstitious belief in cargo-cultism he managed to start a pervasive
internet myth; "Liberals are less charitable than conservatives."

Now mind you, there is nothing inherently brilliant about the construction
of his argument, or in his spurious ability to interpret data... or even to
use data that adhered to similar definitions as those he argued. But,
nonetheless, he was able to spread this absurd idea via word of mouth
through those who were entirely too lazy to read the work they cited. Some
parts of his book Who Really Cares; The Surprising Truth About Compassionate
Conservatism -- America's Charity Divide--Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It
Matters are food for thought. Some of the arguments are inconclusive or
contain vast gaps in their cited data. Other parts are unquestionably
purposeful dishonesty.

http://crackpotdoomscandal.blogspot.com/2012/01/those-stingy-uncharitable-liberals.html

republicans have proved time after time that they couldn't care less about
the poor, military vets, the religious right or anyone other than rich
republicans.

Arthur Brooks' book has been debunked as a flawed and partisan study that
should be sold in the fiction section of the book store. Brooks himself has
admitted that he cut out a lot of qualifying data because the truth would
not sell very well to those that want to believe the lies that that ended up
filling that work of fiction called "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth
about Compassionate Conservatism".

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090524120722AA85XFM

[Bill Shatzer]

hal lillywhite wrote:
> On May 17, 10:13 am, Joe Dixon <J.Di...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:35:01 -0700, hal lillywhite wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure I believe this is really significant but it is interesting.
>>
>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-
>>
>>likely-right-wing-political-views.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Physically weak men tend to like the welfare state while those with more
>>>upper body strength tend more to freedom.
>>
>>>Make of it what you will.
>>
>>Yes, I used to think like this when I was young and strong then I got old
>>and had a heart attack. Let's just say it gave me a new perspective on
>>life.
>
>
> The part of that article that I really question is the claim that
> strong men don't like the welfare state because they don't need help.
> That implies that they are willing to let others do without. Yet
> political "conservatives," at least in the US, are much more
> charitable than are the so-called liberals

An oft repeated allegation but one which is widely disputed. Repetition
of dubious claims do not make them true.

http://tinyurl.com/axp56m7

> (though most but not all of
> that difference is related to religious belief. see the book, Who
> Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks.

And the question remains, should most donations to religious
institutions be counted as "charity"?

To take a rather flagrant example (brazenly stolen from a James Perinea
article), the Catholic Knights of Columbus is considered a religious
organization and donations thereto are tax deductible and are therefore
counted as "charity". Yet the KofC contributed almost $2 million to fund
anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. Had
those contributions to the KofC been made to the NOfM directly, they
would not have been tax deductible or counted as "charity" but by
funneling the moneys through the KofC, it becomes, somehow, both tax
deductible and a "charitable donation".

And, of course, had folks donated to organizations opposed to the NOfM's
agenda and campaigns, like the Human Rights Campaign, those donations
were not tax deductible nor counted as "charity". Only if one could find
a "religious institution" to funnel one's funds through could the
donations be eligible for tax deductions and classified as "charity".

The Catholic Church has paid out megamillions of dollars to settle
clergy sexual abuse claims, every dollar of which was presumably
contributed by parishioners in tax deductible funds and deemed
"charitable contributions". Yet I doubt many folks would consider paying
off sex abuse cases as a "charity".

peace and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

I would say they should, quite as much as donations to planned
(non)parenthood. Nevertheless you should read the book. He points
out that the conservatives, especially religious conservatives, donate
more to secular causes as well.

[Bill Shatzer]

I rather suspect that most heathens would prefer women's health services
to having another car load of Bibles thrust at them by well meaning
missionaries. Indeed, I suspect most non-heathens would have a similar
preference. In the overall scale of things, I'd think health services
advance human welfare and happiness considerably more than Bible
thumping - or paying off sex abuse victims.

> Nevertheless you should read the book. He points
> out that the conservatives, especially religious conservatives, donate
> more to secular causes as well.

Brooks has been, if not exactly refuted, contradicted by several
aubsequent studies.

See, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

Even Brooks himself has conceded that his methodology was flawed
although he continues to defend his general conclusions.

Still, he's not revisited the subject with a corrected methodology.

peace and justice,

[Moses]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:55:00 -0700, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu>
wrote:

> The Catholic Church has paid out megamillions of dollars to settle
> clergy sexual abuse claims, every dollar of which was presumably
> contributed by parishioners in tax deductible funds and deemed
> "charitable contributions". Yet I doubt many folks would consider paying
> off sex abuse cases as a "charity".

Actually most of the civil claims of sexual abuse were paid off by selling
land and through bankruptcy court.

[Bill Shatzer]

And how do you suppose they acquired that land in the first place save
by the donations of parishioners?

Indeed, is acquiring land a 'charitable purpose'?

Most folks wouldn't think so.

pece and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

On May 17, 10:13 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:

> >>And the question remains, should most donations to religious
> >>institutions be counted as "charity"?
> > I would say they should, quite as much as donations to planned
> > (non)parenthood.
>
> I rather suspect that most heathens would prefer women's health services
> to having another car load of Bibles thrust at them by well meaning
> missionaries. Indeed, I suspect most non-heathens would have a similar
> preference. In the overall scale of things, I'd think health services
> advance human welfare and happiness considerably more than Bible
> thumping - or paying off sex abuse victims.

The beauty of private charity is that we can pick what we want to
support. And nobody has to listen to those missionaries unless he
wants to.

> > Nevertheless you should read the book.  He points
> > out that the conservatives, especially religious conservatives, donate
> > more to secular causes as well.
>
> Brooks has been, if not exactly refuted, contradicted by several
> aubsequent studies.
>
> See,http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

I haven't read the whole thing and may not take time to do so.
However so far I'm not impressed. They criticize Brooks for taking
people's definition of themselves as liberal, conservative etc and
insist on using voter registration by party instead. I can't buy
that, lots of elephants are moderate or even leftist while there are
quite a few donkeys likewise moderate or conservative. Then they redo
their analysis removing Utah (conservative, high charitable giving)
and DC (leftist, probably not much charity). Sounds like picking the
data to arrive at a foregone conclusion.

> Even Brooks himself has conceded that his methodology was flawed
> although he continues to defend his general conclusions.

Reference?

[hal lillywhite]

On May 18, 7:38 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:

> Indeed, is acquiring land a 'charitable purpose'?

Depends on what the land is used for. Build a hospital for the poor?
Grow food for the poor? There is even a trust in this area regarded
as tax free that buys up land for conservation purposes.

[Bill Shatzer]

And just where was the Cathholic Church growning "food for the poor"?

And, indeed, which Catholic Hospitals were auctioned off to provide
funds to settle sex abuse cases?

Let's not stray too far from the original point.

peace and justice,