Otter's Rock

UK Daily Mail: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets.  And being refused ambulances.  And turned out of the hospital to give birth in bathrooms.

But wait, you say, we're Americans!  We can do better than our cousins across the pond!  But you see, we already have one national health care system, the Veterans Affairs system.  You know, like Walter Reed Hospital?  The one that has all the problems?  Oh, wait ... it's not just Walter Reed.  It's the whole system.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't want the people who run a health-care system that's just waiting for it's patients to die and then downplaying the problems to be the only health-care system available.

Should everyone have access to needed health care?  Absolutely.  Should the Government be in charge of it?  Hell no.  Not unless they can find their ass with at least one hand.  Which, judging by the available evidence, they can't.

So I was reading this post by chopchica which asks why is it that it isn't alright in fandom to be obviously racist or shut people down over racial issues, but it apparently is alright to do it to Jews? Why is it that racial prejudice issues get explored in mainstream culture, but not anti-Semitism? It's an interesting discussion, go read it.

Anyway, it got me thinking about a conversation over lunch in the refectory this week, about anti-racism workshops in general and one we had last year in particular. We were talking about how so many of them (and being mostly middle-class WASPS we've all had to sit through many of them) are counter-productive, which makes even the ones that aren't counter-productive somewhat useless. Which is really bad, because it's a topic that everyone needs to be thinking about constructively.

( Let me use an example from my own history. )

We hear all the time about how the Liberals are nicer people--they want to take care of people, and the environment, etc. Conservatives, being against government programs that do these things, are inherently less compassionate, right? After all, argue the Liberals, sure, in principle it would be better if people would actually donate their time and money to charity than have the government do it, nobody in today's era would actually do that, right? Which is why the government has to step in and do it.

I've always believed that in most cases, that belief that people would never give to charity says more about the people who say that than it does about people in general. And whaddaya know, an economist named Arthur C. Brooks did a study and found out that I was right! Note that he was expecting to find that Liberals gave more to charity (in general) than Conservatives did, and was quite shocked by his actual findings. That's a good indication that his findings aren't tainted by his own biases; I'm always a little leary when people find exactly what they set out to, y'know? Even if it does agree with what I believe. Anyway, here's the Amazon editor's review:

"Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate--and more generous--than liberals

We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers?

Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.

Charity matters--not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Cares, Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.

About the Author
Arthur C. Brooks is professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is the author of numerous articles and books on topics relating to charity and civic life, and his work appears frequently in the Wall Street Journal and other publications."

Among the findings of the book:
Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes

Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%

People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally “progressive causes” such as the arts and the environment

( More stats )

Quote of the Day:
I am not an American who “will cut the cloth of my conscience to fit this year's fashions.”
-Lillian Helman, The Senate Committee on Un-American Activities, 1952

When you have a government big enough to give you all you want, it will be big enough to take it all away.
-Barry Goldwater

God has a special providence for fools, drunks and the United States of America.
-Bismarck