You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.
"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that", Jane Garvey, BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 09:13AM I found this to be rather interesting list, it's Obama's charitable donations expressed as a % of his income...do you notice how his hitherto miserly contributions suddenly INCREASE as his political prospects increase? Mmmmm...now surely Obama wouldn't be just another calculating political opportunist, would he?
2006: 6.1%
2005: 4.7%
2004: 1.2%
2003: 1.4%
2002: 0.4%
2001: 0.5%
2000: 0.9%
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (61)
David, if thats the worst your muck-raking friends can dig up on a man then id be feeling pretty fine if i was obama.
that politicians gradually invest all aspects of their life for hopes of political gain should be no surprise to a man of your experience. the higher the stakes the more they invest. it would seem that even the soul (conscience and morality) itself has a price when it comes to the US Presidency.
Tripper,
Yeah, sure. I forgot to add that the above charitable donations include those to his spiritual guide the Rev Wright - remember him - that hate-spewing bigot? Yes, Obama's a real generous kinda guy...
Yeah, sure. I forgot to add that the above charitable donations include those to his spiritual guide the Rev Wright - remember him - that hate-spewing bigot? Yes, Obama's a real generous kinda guy.
personally im not particularly offended by what the reverend has to say. he speaks alot of uncomfortable truth. my opinion tho is irrelevant, obama on the other hand has spoken on the issue, and i dont remember seeing this particular "contrarian" website posting on it.
One reason that Obama's contributions have risen so dramatically over the last few years might be because he's a lot richer now. A few weeks after he became a US senator his wife's salary for her non-job at a Chicago hospital was raised from $120000 to $320000 overnight.
No doubt more than doubling an employees salary overnight is perfectly standard practice and has nothing to do with Obama becoming a Senator. Sadly the increase wasn't quite enough to make Michelle feel proud of her country.
Ross,
I feel her pain.
Tripper,
Oddly enough, I'm not surprised that you think the Rev Wright's demented ravings are "an uncomfortable truth." It figures.
Small, but delicious facts here.
No suprise here. He is a fraud.
Wow, Mahons...that is a strong statement
Were you always convinced of this, or did your position change after the disclosure of the Racist Rev tapes, etc.
Phantom: I always thought he was a tad lightweight, and had a fine rhetorical style which was best suited to speechs (he is not a great debater). I feel he is cynically using the justly earned good faith of decent Americans on the issue of race to his political advantage. I didn't totalally dismiss him until the speech he gave on race which, outside of the editors of National Review, I may be one of the few Americans to see it as an act of deception.
We have had a conservative lightweight in office in Bush, do we need a liberal one in Obama?
Oddly enough, I'm not surprised that you think the Rev Wright's demented ravings are "an uncomfortable truth." It figures.
youre parsing. i didnt say all of it. nice try.
Mahons
Yes indeed
And since race is topic number one for some of his fans, it intrigues that his background is white by way of Kansas (can't get whiter than that ) and African college student. Not "African American".
Points already noted, but not realized by many of his flock.
Daytripper: "personally im not particularly offended by what the reverend has to say. he speaks alot of uncomfortable truth. "
Actually, David is right.
Phantom: I suppose he would counter that when one is half-black one may be treated unfavorably as fully black. The American black experience is not, if you'll forgive the pun, black and white.
I'd agree with you that he plays whatever shade is convenient depending upon his audience.
This appears to be a record of tax-deductible charity contributions that were recorded and declared, rather than total charitable contributions. Moreover, given the numeracy of the average winger, I wouldn't trust them to add even that much up correctly.
Besides, ~1% is not that low. I wonder how many here give 1% of their income to charity. If everyone did so it would make a great difference.
Frank
I do. And always have. And studies have shown that conservative evangelicals rank among the highest in charitable giving. ( can research later if you like )
You're developing a bad habit in recent days of dismissing arguments based on the source. There can be no conversation if this continues. If you think the information is incorrect, please say why. ( and I don't like the messenger is not a reason! )
There's no reason to assume that all eligible deductions would not be declared. I declare all of mine, and presumably the orator of the ages has declared all of his.
Phantom,
There can be no conversation if this continues.
Oh, yes there can.
It is a standard of argument here and across the blogosphere (and in the real world as well) to attack the messenger when you don't like the news. Ever hear of someone attacking the MSM?
Alan
Yes, but usually MSM attacks are on the grounds that a) they failed to cover certain stories --ie Obama's stinginess! b) that they have their facts wrong --ie the CBS Mary Mapes/Dan Rather scandal c) or that they unduly beat up on certain topics.
So, does Frank shoot the messenger here because he has reason to think the facts are wrong, or because he thinks that it is unfair to cover the story in the first place? Or is it because it is an unpleasant reality?
No one ever said that BBC/NY Times/NPR/CBS/ABC/NBC etc couldn't cover news very well when they chose to do so without putting a spin on it. The criticism of MSM was largely on the grounds of "bias". So if it is biased to write on Obama's small contributions to charity, then I guess there is a legitimate point in there somewhere.
Actually, David is right.
actually he is wrong. so we can chalk up illiteracy aswell as inumeracy. the key word for the slow of learning (conservative) is "ALOT". and not being offended by something is not the same as believing it either.
And studies have shown that conservative evangelicals rank among the highest in charitable giving.
phantom,
oddly enough the same ideological pool is front and centre when it comes to the austere methods of modern capitalism (globalism or imperialism), as employed around the world. i doubt their charitable donations make up for the loss of natural wealth, health and land etc that countless people lose as a result of these measures.
--i doubt their charitable donations make up for the loss of natural wealth, health and land etc that countless people lose as a result of these measures.--
The huge majority of "evangelical conservative" charitable contributions I think would come from average middle to lower income people all over America. Not from the owners of the copper mining company that is raping Papua New Guinea.
So, while the contributions probably do not rectify the harm that big industrialists may be doing, they are valuable and are evidence of extremely good intent.
My personal ( and entirely anecdotal ) evidence has been that when its time to pass the hat locally ( at work, say ) the "conservatives" are often the biggest givers, while the "liberals" frequently keep their hands in their pockets.
Phantom,
The criticism of MSM was largely on the grounds of "bias".
Yes, bias as in "lying." I have often contradicted posts on ATW by citing sources that are immediately discarded as biased, therefore untrue. No one has ever indicated that they were saying that the MSM was simulataneously biased AND trustworthy. In fact, the only person who consistently says that reality has a liberal bias is Frank.
So, while the contributions probably do not rectify the harm that big industrialists may be doing, they are valuable and are evidence of extremely good intent.
all im saying is that it would intent would be best served by opposing such exploitation in the first place. unfortunately that seems to be the stuff of "leftists" and therefore not considerable. being as it is, anti-'capitalist'.
Alan is correct in that at times the sky is falling type stories are posted here based on some other blog or dubious publication, and a brief investigation of the facts crumbles the story.
Thanks, Mahons (you evil Liechtensteiner you).
Alan: Ross commented too soon (I was hoping someone would miss the April 1 Date).
Tripper,
"illiteracy aswell as inumeracy. " LOL!
Phantom,
You're mistaking scepticism for dismissal. In this case you're mistaking a mild swipe at rightworld for scepticism, as I'm not particularly sceptical of those numbers.
However if they were important to anyone, I'd check them, given rightworlds form when it comes to sums. Indeed if you changed those figures from % to degrees fahrenheit, many of them would move heaven and earth to portray it as a cooling trend.
P.S. in fact if you use the math innovations pioneered by rightworld you can probably show that Obama's charitable giving is caused by the sun.
in fact if you use the math innovations pioneered by rightworld you can probably show that Obama's charitable giving is caused by the sun.
damnit frank, there goes another doctoral question off the list.......
--all im saying is that it would intent would be best served by opposing such exploitation in the first place. unfortunately that seems to be the stuff of "leftists" and therefore not considerable. being as it is, anti-'capitalist'.--
Actually, that's hogwash, too.
There was unbelievable environmental degradation in the (not so) old Eastern Europe. Some was caused by the local power structure (installed by the USSR) and much was caused by the USSR directly ( waste on military bases )
The USSR could hardly have been called capitalist, and the damage they caused was great.
Similarly, the environmental and social damage now being caused by Communist China in places like Burma is at least the equal to anything the capitalists have done anywhere on earth. ( Please don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying that China is a "capitalist" place. It's an authoritarian crony communist regime that trades well )
The desire to exploit is a human trait. It wasn't invented by Adam Smith, and it wasn't invented by Karl Marx. Big countries tend to exploit small countries, and the strong exploit the weak. Economic systems have little to nothing to do with it.
--
While I may have differences with Microsoft, compare the multifaceted contributions to the world made by capitalist Bill Gates to that made by any "socialist leader".
Besides the the technology and jobs and general wealth his firm gave to the USA and elsewhere, he has made very large contributions to world health care, and has spent a lot of time trying to ensure that that money was spent well.
Net benefit to the world: very large. Downside: zero. Not bad for a capitalist.
Actually, that's hogwash, too.
you sort of skirt round what i say though. giving examples of other states exploitation does support your argument. and pointing to someone else and claiming "they did it too" only goes further in exposing the childish position you take. none of it is excusible, plus i never claimed exploitation was unique to capitalism, though all of it can be argued to be for the purposes of producing capital wealth. whether the money ends up in the pockets of private companies, wealthy private individuals or in state coffers is of little consequence, especially to those affected.
Similarly, the environmental and social damage now being caused by Communist China in places like Burma is at least the equal to anything the capitalists have done anywhere on earth. ( Please don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying that China is a "capitalist" place. It's an authoritarian crony communist regime that trades well )
again the problem you have there is that chinas economy is now hooked into ours. ive seen the evolution myself, from inhouse subassembly manufacture to outsourcing to the likes of china, plastics molding, PCB manufacturing. ive also seen factories literally uproot and walk east. it is part and parcel of our economy, its not some independant benign anomaly.
The desire to exploit is a human trait. It wasn't invented by Adam Smith, and it wasn't invented by Karl Marx. Big countries tend to exploit small countries, and the strong exploit the weak. Economic systems have little to nothing to do with it.
except, if you are a big nation you tend not to go into other nations merely to bash them about with a stick. you go into to make money. otherwise you wouldnt be there in the first place. we shall also ignore the fact that such policy guaruntees you get bigger and the others get smaller and that big nations dont invade poor countries, they invade rich countries. rich in resources, rich in land and rich in labour. not about economics LOL.
-----
Net benefit to the world: very large. Downside: zero. Not bad for a capitalist.
im not entirely convinced. impressive as his contributions are, the world would have been much better served if his company had not been so predatory with the competition. without which the options open to poorer nations would have been greater, standards higher, quality better and best of all, almost guarunteed to be cheaper and without the restrictive licensing issues that surround MS products. schools would likely have to spend less on IT resources and more on actually educating, etc etc ad nauseum.
Bill Gates knows this all too well.
Never said it wasn't about economics. For the purpose of this discussion, it is all about economics. And environmental and social injustice, whether in-country or externally (as you say) has never been unique to capitalism.
Run the misery numbers from 1917 on, and I'll take the aggregate result of US/EU/South Korean/Japanese/Taiwanese capitalism over USSR/China/N.Korea/Cuban communism/socialism any day of the week. For too many reasons to count.
Phantom - so would Daytripper, he isn't blogging from Moscow (it just seems that way).
Moscow in the olden days!
Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end!
DT
I'm not a big fan of all Microsoft software.
But
you don't know that others would have set any better standards.
and
the company's biggest contribution was that it set a standard of any kind --if it went in the direction of a tower of babble with no one big winner, you'd have had technological confusion.
And I say this as someone who uses Firefox and Google applications exclusively for my personal needs. You gotta give Gates his props.
Run the misery numbers from 1917 on, and I'll take the aggregate result of US/EU/South Korean/Japanese/Taiwanese capitalism over USSR/China/N.Korea/Cuban communism/socialism any day of the week. For too many reasons to count.
why start at 1917? and why restrict the list?
----------
Tripper,
"illiteracy aswell as inumeracy. " LOL!
missed this one. LOL indeed. my bad. stands humbled.
Phantom - so would Daytripper, he isn't blogging from Moscow (it just seems that way).
curiously, ive never been. though i plan to tour the ukraine next year with luck.
I start with the October Revolution, which sent Europe and the world down a very bad road. But go back as far as you like
I would like to see Ukraine someday myself. You may not find universal agreement to your theories there.
DT -Enjoy the Ukraine. I've only been to Little Ukraine in NYC.
I start with the October Revolution, which sent Europe and the world down a very bad road. But go back as far as you like
so we can include all the victims of slavery, the genocide of the original peoples of both american and the australian continents and the victims of exploition (other than slavery) of most of africa, the entire subcontinent and far east? and vietnam, korea, indonesia, and all the other client states of the west during cold war era?
go ahead. start counting.
I would like to see Ukraine someday myself. You may not find universal agreement to your theories there.
i dont go on holidays for politics. im capable enough to keep my opinions to myself. unless the devil requires advocacy ofcourse :)
Mahons,
Do you mean the little Odessa section of Brooklyn? I was there last November and had a delicious Chicken Kiev at the Primorski Restaurant..
DT -Enjoy the Ukraine. I've only been to Little Ukraine in NYC.
i was planning on it this year, but ive just signed for the new house today so its not going to happen. hopefully next year. the plan was; Kiev>>Odessa>>Crimea>>Kharkov>>Kiev. Either by train/boat or by car. both are likely bonkers (train routes get convoluted in places), but ive no doubt itd be great fun.
Alan: No. Little Ukraine in Manhattan is on the same street as McSorley's Ale House (hence my stumbling upon it).
DT -congrats on the new house, I presume it isn't in Crawford, Texas.
Phantom,
(re microsoft)
"you don't know that others would have set any better standards."
Yes we do because they have. Indeed Microsoft has stolen a few of them. Al Gore didn't invent the Internet but neither did Bill Gates, or much else either.
Besides Microsoft never set any standard and has intentionally and unintentionally broken backwards compatibility on numerous occasions. These days nothing can reliably read a Word document, including Word. Vista has as much problems running an old school windows app as any other OS.
Indeed Denning had great foresight when he said: "That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further'.
DT,
What, no stop in Chernobyl?
What, no stop in Chernobyl?
funnily enough, we didnt completely rule it out. tours are available.
top trumps in dinner party conversation.
I was driving from a business trip in PA, when came upon Three Mile Island. Spent an hour at their "visitor Center".
Not terribly interesting, but I can say that I was there. Chernobyl would trump any nuke site visit.
DT
I'm not a big fan of all Microsoft software.
few are, most are just resigned to using it out of severe lack of choice.
the company's biggest contribution was that it set a standard of any kind --if it went in the direction of a tower of babble with no one big winner, you'd have had technological confusion.
as frank says, most of its accomplishments were never microsofts to claim in the first place. and as for standards, most are set independantly of individual companies and with major forum and consensus. MS has repeatedly tried to navigate round many standards, and continues to do so. These include RS-232, TCP/IP and HTML to name but a few. If anything MS has done more the confuse technological standards than any other single company.
backwards compatibility
Frank,
thanks for reminding me what i got to do tomorrow. and what shall i create my matrix on? Excel raaaaaaaa!
I was driving from a business trip in PA, when came upon Three Mile Island. Spent an hour at their "visitor Center".
check out the itinery of the chernobyl tour. the museum is optional. LOL. plus u get a rad suit and dosimeter. not exactly a cheap tour though.
DT,
Just say no
Well, not to get into a big software conversation, but they must have added some value, since Lotus 123 and Word Perfect are essentially not here any more and Excel and Word are.
I don't think that this is just due to predatory behavior. There must have been some value, else all the corporations in the world would not have fallen into line to pay big bucks for the systems.
Again, I'm not a fan of the stuff, and my buddies who are big into technology tend to dislike Microsoft products a lot, claiming its bloated, expensive, etc.
But Microsoft's strategy of letting any computer maker use their software was brilliant, as opposed to Apple, who I hear had better products but kept itself in an expensive boutique. The market Microsoft enjoys today might have been Apple's but they misplayed their hand.
As respects PCs, I understand that Linux is hard to use --which is why that system has not grown all that much. Microsoft's operating systems are easier for the individual user. Which is why they keep their dominant position, despite Apple's nibbling around the edges.
"DT -congrats on the new house, I presume it isn't in Crawford, Texas."
He could do worse!
Yorkshire?
DT -congrats on the new house, I presume it isn't in Crawford, Texas.
thanks guys. fyi. worse. belfast.