Way back on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 6am Denver time, I was in an airplane getting ready for take off.
This flight would take me to North Carolina for a one hour layover and then home to Massachusetts - where I would get home in time to cast my vote for Martha Coakley (which I did).
This trip and flight back was memorable for many reasons. One of those reasons was the phone call I got while sitting in the airplane, on the tarmac (apron) waiting to be pushed back from the gate . . .
I had been in Denver, CO for two weeks to help take care of my parents, get some legal and medical things taken care of for them, clean and sort things out in their house, get things set up for them to make their life easier, spend time with them, etc.
I only got to spend some time with them, getting nothing else done, because a few days into the trip I got royally sick. A few days after we discovered that I had/have a rare disease that makes the membrane around one's intestines swell. It is, needless to say, incredibly painful.
On Jan. 19 it was time to go home. By the time I got to Denver International Airport I was already not feeling well. I hadn't taken any painkillers yet, more because it had slipped my mind in the rush, but also not wanting to appear too out of it for TSA. I kinda of noticed that as I checked in I was being offered an upgrade to first class for a couple of hundred dollars. I passed.
By the time I got to the airport security I was already in terrible pain and hoping that they wouldn't read the wrong things into my attitude and facial expressions. I was ready to tell them why and explain that the next day I had an appointment with my own doctor back in Massachusetts to deal with this thing, they had to let me go HOME. Luckily they let me go on through, even with my humungo bag of medication that I failed to remove from my carry on.
By the time I got to the gate I was crying uncle, and I paid for the upgrade to first class. Basically so I would have room and be more comfortable and not disturb the other passengers. I sort of laughed to myself sardonically that this was my first time flying first class and I wouldn't even get to enjoy it.
I got to my seat, got out my cell phone, stowed my carry on and waited for the aisle to clear so I could get my pain pills. My first call was to my husband to tell him I was on the flight, that I had upgraded my ticket and why. I got his voice mail.
After leaving a message and hanging up my cell rang almost immediately. I thought it was him but it turned out to be this:
Yes, sitting on the tarmac in Denver, I got a polling call reported on Balloon Juice and Rachel Maddow, for the day's election in Massachusetts.
I thought the whole situation funny and called my husband to laugh on his voice mail about the polling call, sortly before taking my pain medication and passing out for most of the trip. Sadly, that call was the most fun I had on the trip back.
What Balloon Juice and Rachel Maddow did not report was another question in the poll. One other question stated that according to a study (sorry I don't remember the citation or if there was one) liberals give in charity 25% LESS than conservatives. The question was whether I believed this was true or not.
This polling call came January 19, the Haitian earthquake came January 12. This liberal (me) even while away had coordinated with her husband and had given toTexmex's Shelter Box appeal, and the Red Cross. We were also happy that 3 weeks before we had sent a check to Doctor's Without Borders.
Last count Kossak's were responsible for almost 124 boxes, that equals at least $123,000.00 in donations.
We had also given, as many other on this site and others, to the National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC) coordinated so beautifully by Keith Olbermann.
(I wish I could find the most recent Special Comment from Keith Olbermann on how much has been donated thus far)
In the last week we have given along with many from this site and others, to the relief efforts for the disaster at the South Dakota, Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation.
and the day before
I know our own (my family of liberals) "giving schedule" has us at minimum, giving to one cause every month: 6 domestic and 6 international.
I'm not even touching or writing about all the personal appeals of Kossaks who have been laid off and need help. This community has more often than not stepped up and helped.
So given what I've seen here and what we do personally, I pressed the number "2" button to indicate that I do not agree with the study's findings that liberals give in charity 25% LESS than conservatives.
Now I have heard this claim before. It was said a lot on right wing radio in the 1990s, especially by Rush Limbaugh. He, they, said that liberals don't give because we expect the government to do it. Limbaugh himself strongly intimated that liberals count our charity as our taxes, and even had an anecdote of one liberal who refused to give anything to charity because he wanted everyone dependent on the government. Citing one liberal as a brush to paint all of us with.
(Some how I think more conservatives count their taxes as their charity more than liberals do.)
I did wonder, before tottering off into lala pain free sleep land, how this "study" was conducted, what were it's parameters, and what was their sampling.
Did they, for instance, count church tithing as charity giving?
Did they ask people if they gave to the $1.00 drive thru window charity drives for things like MDA, the Jimmy Fund, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, etc. Because that's charity, but less likely to be counted on ones income tax.
Did they look at the tax issue at all? Because many liberals do not count all their charity giving on their taxes because they feel it's not true charity if they are only doing it for tax breaks.
How did they come up with that percentage? How did they measure it, how did they define "charitable giving," how did they obtain their sampling? etc. etc. etc.
It's more than that though, it's also the conservative/Republican double speak when it comes to liberals/Democrats/progressives. People are told on the one hand that we are stingy bastards because we don't give as much in charity as conservatives, and on the other hand we are bleeding hearts. Implying that we open our wallets to any and every sad sack case that comes our way. Conservatives use it as a pejorative.
The definition of "bleeding heart" is "a person who is considered excessively sympathetic toward those who claim to be underprivileged or exploited."
and this
Its origin may be the Order of the Bleeding Heart, a semireligious order of the Middle Ages honoring the Virgin Mary, whose ‘heart was pierced with many sorrows. The expression was introduced into political usage in the thirties by columnist Westbrook Pegler. By the 1990s the term was applied more broadly and, not without irony, even to ultraconservatives. Mr. Pegler’s most frequent "target" was first lady Eleanor Roosevelt (Safire’s New Political Dictionary by William Safire-Random House, New York, 1993). - from Berry Street Beacon
When was the last time you heard someone labeled a "Bleeding heart conservative?"
But how can we liberals be both? How can we be both "stingy" and "spendthrift" when it comes to charitable giving all at the same time?
I will submit that while yes, we want the government involved in a social safety net so we as a civilization don't devolve into Dickensian England, it is not the sole plank on our social justice platform.
Charitable giving is another one of those planks. The government cannot due it all. It cannot be "father provider," but it still has an important part to play in providing a safety net and securing that the rights, welfare and safety of the little guy are not trampled on by corporations.
Conservatives like to say that they should be in charge of where their charity goes and that they shouldn't be forced into charity. But why is "Implied Consent of the Governed" only applicable when it's what Republican/Conservative issues against Liberal/Democratic/Progressive issues?
We are the ones who are always told that if we don't like the conservative way they run the country to move. However when the country moves left, they dig in. This is more rhetorical pondering than actual questioning.
I'd still like to see the mechanics of this "study."
But from what I've seen around here in the last year or two, I think I can safely call the study's findings "bullshit."