Saturday, November 18, 2006

To infinite wankery! And beyond!

Oh, Lord ... Canada's own Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck™ channels Adam Daifallah. It's way too early in the morning for that kind of bad craziness.

BY THE WAY, it's always possible that Kate's self-congratulatory stroking might be a wee bit premature, given that the book she's crowing about isn't scheduled for release until November 24. Is it normal for someone to wax this sanctimonious over something they haven't even read yet?

And maybe, just maybe, it's worth spending a few minutes online, where one finds cautionary pieces like this:

Yet, the apple tends to fall, in all giving, pretty close to the tree. Yalies give to Yale, preps to their prep school. Educated money to the arts and cultural institutions that provide services that donors use and appreciate. The believer gives to his or her church or house of worship. The church may be in a good part of town, surrounded by big houses. The pet lover endows a home for poodles. The athlete a stadium. And on and on.

Yes, it would be interesting to see just where all that vaunted conservative charity is going, wouldn't it? Maybe, as the first commenter suggests, this is where some of those "qualifiers" have been dropped.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? Hell, no. It would be irresponsible not to.


Anonymous said...

I like this part near the end of that BeliefNet article:

"Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

Gee, I wonder what "qualifying information" that might have been. And should any of us be surprised that that little disclaimer never made it into Kate's article?

Anonymous said...

I really can't stomach reading that lying coward, or the smarmy, deluded bullshit of her commentators.

But that's pretty fucking rich. Wow! One book apparently proves something to lying, cowardly KKKate, and that's the end of the story?

How about the mountains of historical evidence that private charity was always insufficient for dealing with the consequences of structural poverty?

Add that to the author's own concession that he cut out a lot of qualifying information, and you've got nothing but another mountain of shit pouring out of KKKate's mouth.

Of course, were one to bother pointing out any information that could disembowel her argument, she'd delete it and then carry on in her blissful self-righteous self-deception.

M@ said...

You know, if you guys are going to actually read the articles that KKKate posts, you're really missing the point. You've got to suppress those impulses to judge, or read, or think.

Then you can comment there safely, too.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. The first comment on that thread was...

charity begins at home.

thats why Jack and Olivia lived in subsidized housing for so many years.

Posted by: cal2 at November 17, 2006 09:11 PM

...and the last one was...

Isn't it curious how quickly the Left latched onto the term "Progressive" after the Conservatives dropped it off? It was almost instantaneous and not at all fitting. Regressive would better describe their agendas.
Posted by: Liz J at November 18, 2006 09:19 AM

Not one single neuron firing in that whole fucking mess.

Anonymous said...

This bit of hers really stuck in my craw:

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

What a perversely twisted way to note that it's mostly secular liberals (though some religious liberals too) who haven't let up on demanding the government do its duty by all its people -- say, by making sure nobody, even those on welfare, has to sleep in the street or go to a food bank.

Worse, though, is for her to advance the notion that because secular liberals are loudest in demanding the government do its duty, that means we don't give. Bollocks, squared and cubed.

"...not one single neuron firing" Ti-Guy? Too right.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes. I started a food drive that has collected over $60,000 for the Mustard Seed Food Bank annually for the past 5 years, and I personally give thousands of dollars to charity every year. The United Way and the Red Cross get automatic monthly withdrawals from my chequing account.

But I'm a leftie, therefore, I must be uncharitable. Gee Kate, thanks ever so much.

oooo I could just curse!

M@ said...

Deanna's a commie! GET HER!!!

¢rÄbG®äŠŠ said...

m@: C'mon now, give Deanna a chance. She's only a commie if she floats.