You are currently browsing Jon C.’s articles.
The inaugural selection for the Mans Inc. book of the month is entitled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” by Arthur C. Brooks.
It is statistically proven that the single biggest indicator of one’s charitable givings is religion. I found it really interesting to read the various statistical breakdowns of altruism in the United States. Before being exposed to this book, I wasn’t sure what the findings would be to such a question, although it would seem that liberalism/socialism would naturally lead people to greater giving. It is simply not the case. Here are a few of the more telling statistics to be garnered from the book:
- Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
- People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
One of the things that I found really interesting that is so often religious conservatives tend to oppose liberal social justice advocates, and it is quite eye-opening to see who really “practices what they preach.” It is also interesting given that WordPress, the host which is lucky enough to have Mans Inc. on it, is replete with militant atheist blogs, and the statistical reality highlighted by Brooks is a stark reminder to these contributors to tone back their rhetoric and acknowledge the truths regarding how social justice and charitable organizations are supported.
I would recommend this book to any conservative who wishes to gain a more accurate platform to understand the disconnect between liberal philosophy and practice.
I’ll finish with a quote:
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon — a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.” Brooks, however, warns: “If support for a policy that does not exist … substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others.”
The Delta Smelt is a 5-7cm. long fish that is listed on the Endangered Species List, and it resides in California, a state severely hit by the current depression.
The California taxpayer is about 6 feet tall, works about 40 hours a week, and is quite abundant all along the West Coast, including California.
Apparently, according to the liberal hippies in California, and in California’s congressional delegation (I’m looking at you Pelosi) in Washington, the former is more important than the latter.
The protection of this fish is slated to remove 500,000 acres of agriculturally-viable lands in the state from use, resulting in the loss of 80,000 estimated jobs. Exactly what California needs right now, I’m sure.
Although the scheme and object of the Endangered Species Act is legitimate in many situations, this is clearly not one of them. The basic principle of common sense is being drown in the same waters that these little Anchovy-wannabes are swimming in.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Ca.) is finding the situation so ridiculous that he says California as we know it, is over, and the reset button must be hit.
That reset button should be saved for the Democrats in Congress that are so drunk on ideology that they would allow for this environmental legislation to be bastardized in such a way that would cost 80,000 people their jobs. This is an example of how the current depression is causing the cracks to start openly tearing in some areas of the US. Issues like these need to be brought to the attention of the public in greater detail so that the hard-working tax-payers on this continent can take a stand for what is right, and not let the sinking ship that is America fall even faster.
Rep. Nunes, who is quickly becoming my favorite member of Congress, made a powerful YouTube video which any MansInc. regular should check out…
Thanks for the help Nancy!
” We should just take back all the money that we gave those executives.”
“If the government is bailing out corporations like AIG, why can’t the government simply not pay executives these bonuses that aren’t earned?”
“Obama sucks!” (just to keep these articles harmonious).
The economy has most people dusting off their old pickfork, lighting up that trusty torch, and joining the angry mob.
One of the stories that has received the most attention regards the bonuses that are being paid to executives of corporations now under majority control by the United States Government. Hearing of executives of these companies being paid bonuses during tough economic times, when their companies have performed terribly, using government money that objectively represents debt that will be paid by our children’s children, will cause anyone to get pissed off, and rightfully so. But there is a huge difference between what ought to be and what is.
These bonuses represent contactual obligations that these corporations are bound to pay their employees. The Rule of Law would be severely deteriorated if these bonuses were not paid despite their contractual validity, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. No amount of moralistic reasoning, or meritocratic logic allows this contracts to be dissolved. This would have severe implications for many contractual relationships between employers and employees, and the negatives will far outweigh the positives in the long run.
The Democrat-controlled House and Senate has advanced a plan to retroactively tax these bonuses, which amounts to stealing from these citizens.
These bonuses are gone, and the major media needs to start focusing on the lack of leadership the Democrats are showing in proactively instituting new reforms to ensure that this pattern of incompetence does not continue.
Today it was announced that Sarah Palin will be giving the key-notes speech at the Republican Senate-House dinner in June. Has the Republican party not learned from their mistake?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20063.html
In the hey-day of the party, the Republicans were the party of business, innovation, and intelligence. Many in the leadership of the party in the past have had impressive economic expertise, and if there was a candidate offered like this in the last election, it is debatable if Obama would have been able to pull out a victory.
So why continue to promote someone that, in part, cost the Republican party the election in 2008?
I for one strongly hope that the Republican party returns to its roots in business and economics. Upholding conservative social values is also good, but not is that if the only thing you bring to the table, you simply cannot win elections. The Republican Party needs to do some serious adjusting in it’s long term strategy, because, like it or not, having the name “Palin” anywhere near a ticket in 2012 is a sure-fire way to get two terms of a Democrat in the White House.
The GOP can start now by promoting candidates that are business saavy, and proven leaders in the economy. This is the recipe for success for a party that has been decimated in recent history.
This criticism comes from a desire to see the GOP strong again, and they can take a lesson from Harper’s success in Canada, a Prime Minister with a Master degree in Economics, helping to minimize the damage our country has to endure in this tough time.
Let’s hope that the GOP learns their lesson before it is too late!
Reports are coming in that the violence in Mexico is reducing the supply of illegal drugs that is coming into Vancouver, making the gangs in the area more desperate for the limited resources available. Clearly the police in the lower mainland are completely useless, which isn’t surprising given that this province is filled with a bunch of hippies and NDP-supporters. What is an upstanding gentleman to do with so many shooting going on?
A lesson in history.
In 1788, Britain had a little crime problem of it’s own, so they decided to ship all of their degenerate criminals to a little place called Australia. Seemed to work out fairly nicely.
Well, Canada doesn’t have to travel far, because we have an island of our own that will do just fine.
Baffin Island: Canada's Largest Prison
In my opinion, we need to take all of the gang members in the lower mainland and ship them up to Baffin Island, no “work camps” or “rehabilitation facilities,” or “food” or “shelter.” Just one or two Earl’s restaurants where these miscreants can spend $400 between three people on a Tuesday at 2:30pm on Monkey’s Lunches and Jack Frosts.
It is time for the citizens of B.C., the ones with balls, to take back their damn country and stop expecting a government that has been run by fucking hippies for the last half century to get anything right in law enforcement. It worked for Britain, and they weren’t even dealing with minorities.
Canada’s World has more info.
