Redstate

Black, is the black preacher who helps local drug addicts kick their habit, and black is also the black gangbanger down the street selling crack.

White, is 73-year-old Mrs. Swanson who likes to bake cookies for everybody, and white is also the white registered sex offender down the street.

Black and white is meaningless.

I doubt "the research" accounts for all the other character cues that people pick up on, besides race, from one extreme of character to the other, and everything in between.

As Dennis Prager says, there are only two races: decent and indecent.

How do you evaluate the race of a charity ? And, Since when to charities record giving by political affiliation. Some PR flack put this together as  a package and the post pumped it out without questioning where the data came from. I will point out in a consider the source vein that it was the same UC school system that did a study showing that conservatives were less well adjusted as children.

I can't agree more, Joliphant. The piece stinks of poor reporting and baseless assumptions. We should expect more of our "journalists" these days: hard questions, critical analysis and logical conclusions. Unfortunately we've come to expect less: leading questions, agenda driven analysis and politically motivated conclusions.

that deep down I was a Republican racist b*astard; now I have Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar and the Washington Post to confirm it for me. so I will now go out and kill myself in atonement, leaving my entire fortune to the Democratic Party and Ted Kennedy.

Why does it not surprise me that this is a front page story in the Post; I guess they couldn't find any secrets of value to Al Queda but sdaly for them the Times has an exclusive contract with Bin Laden.

is that it is probably factual. The press has a real problem sorting out when to "report" facts and when facts need some additional commentary.

This is one of those cases. The press has adopted "editorial journalism" as the norm; reporting of the facts surrounded by "color commentary" from the reporter. We see it every day in their reporting of Iraq, Katrina, et  al. This story cries out for commentary to explain the nuances but, because it involves Republicans, the "reporter" will not, or cannot, provide further explanation.

According to the Post article, Republicans are non-racist penny pinching misers who refuse to give to anyone, black or white.  While Democrats are actually racist and motivated by guilt over their own prosperity give generously but favor white people.

Of course, as some one pointed out, this is all garbage.

Some of you guys are misreading the article.  It doesn't say they studied actual giving from charities.  It says it was an online experiment.  It sounds to me like they asked Republicans, Democrats, and independents how much they would give in certain situations.  Apparently what they found was that Republicans would gives less money for a shorter period of time and that Republicans are less racist because they are consistently less generous.  Further, Republicans likely gave less money for a shorter period of time, not because they are greedy but because of their political philosophy.  Republicans believe in helping to get people back on their feet, not extended welfare (i.e. "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life").  I see nothing to be offended about.

So: (1) it was a psychological experiment not a study of actual giving. (2) it says Republicans considered race less than Democrats (i.e. were more likely to ignore racial differences). (3) This could just as well be read as reflecting a political philosophy of help and welfare not the personal greed of Republicans.

I did a little research and found that charitable donations from states that went republican in the last 2 elections was higher as a percentage of income than the states that voted democrat. Make of this what you will. The only conclusion I can draw from it is that when real people and real dollars are involved places that vote republican are more generous than places that vote democrat.

Pardon me for being dense but if you give to a church, a temple, a mosque or your a pagans sacred grove relief fund how is it less of a contribution ?

If it is true that charitable donations from Red States exceed those of Blue States as percent of income, it is possible that:

as Red States, they have higher growth rates and/or higher per capital income.

Higher per capita income would easily lead to higher charitable donations as percent of income.

of charitable contributions. As I recall the highest 'contributions as a percentage of personal income' was Mississippi while the lowest was one of the NE states. I remember Mississippi because it stuck out that the people with the lowest per capita income were the most generous. I haven't found it on the web yet but if I do I'll post the link.

I can't get at census.gov right now, but the blue states have the highest median household income.

This experiment was not a measure of giving to charity -- and it wasn't even a measure of willingness to give to chairty.  The experiment asked people how much money the government should give Katrina-impacted people "over an extended period of time" (i.e. a proxy for a type of extended welfare).

All I know is that when I was helping to collect clothing and load up trucks after Katrina at my church, no one asked if they came from Democrats or Republicans, or if the clothing was going to be worn by black or white storm victims.

Sierra Club, Greenpeace, ACLU, etc.

some of the most likely to have services directed at the poor.  Food banks and the like.

Also, I know that the church I am a member of has a very efficient and very well organized disaster relief group.  

All of these things are supported by designated gifts to the church and funds given in tithes to the church.

I recall the study you talk about.  If NH wasn't the lowest, I know that it was pretty darn close.

I actually think all the states in NE were in the bottom of the list for giving.

Democrats support welfare, Republicans don't.  Stop the presses... they might be on to something!

all the well off NE states were pretty tight. And the other lower economic states were high along with Mississippi.

Mississippi first, Massachusetts last in generosity survey

Turns out it was in 2000! Time flies when you are having fun I guess. There may be more recent similar studies however.

the study being discussed and the study mentioned upthread are defining charitable giving in two different ways--the Iyengar study had a very limited definition of charity.

That if you chose your definitions properly and take a narrow enough view you can characterize republicans as being stingy, uncharitable and unwilling to help those that have had their lives destroyed. Also, if that same study should happen to show the democrats are bigoted racists that can be shrugged off as meerly being unprincipaled.

Funny thing is liberals froth at the mouth when someone mentions the phrase fair and balanced.

Its that definition of charity. If someone gives to a church or the united way whatever the money comes out of their pocket immediately, If someone decides that government aid should be given they are in effect trying to play the odds that they won't feel the pain of giving. They are taking a chance that the cost of giving will fall on someone else. In other words the republicans are willing to be charitable with their money and the democrats are willing to be charitable with republican money.

Combine the two pieces we get republicans are less willing to spend other peoples money and are more willing to help people than democrats. While you get the democrats are bigoted racists which you really didn't need the study for. They have such an obsession about race and equality that a blind man could see it for the beard for their guilt that it is.

It's really pretty straightforward. How you operationalize your variables with have an effect on the outcome of a study.

they gave things that were far more valueable--a place to stay, a vehicle to drive, the clothes off their backs, blankets, food, a new job, helped them get into a new school, get a new apt, etc.  You can't measure that stuff in numbers.

those in massachusetts don't have any money left over to be generous with.