The Liberal Mind – Giving and Receiving

George Rebane

This marks the start of a new series on Ruminations which will seek to shed light on the profound differences between the conservative and liberal views of the world, reasoning about human behavior, and prescriptions on how we should best live together.  Specifically we will examine the liberal mind to understand its wonders and workings.  These posts will be filed in the new category of ‘The Liberal Mind’.

 

In recent weeks I have been taken to task for both not revealing the causes to which I contribute my personal funds, and for revealing from what sources others receive funds for their personal benefit.  In the discussions surrounding both cases, it was made clear to me by several liberals that both cases are equivalent.  In other words Case A and Case B as shown in the figure above are equivalent in the liberal view of the world.  And being so, both come under the same rules of disclosure when the parties in Cases A and B meet for public discourse.  Furthermore, there is no differentiation if the person receiving funds gets those funds from tax-payer or public sources, they are still equal.

I hope that these little vignettes and illustrations will serve to illuminate a good portion of why progressives and conservatives more often than not talk past each other, and have so little respect for each other’s reasoning faculties.  Forewarned is forearmed – wish I would have known about this one.  And now you know how and when to gird your loins.

Comments

[Jeff Pelline]

George,
No, in your case you give funds in the hope of receiving some personal benefit to help stroke your massive ego.

[Barry Pruett]

Wow...if that is not the pot calling the kettle black. I cannot speak for George, but it seems to me that the more income people have, the more they are willing to give to the needy. I see this in my own finances, and I see it in the finances of others that contribute large amounts of dollars to charitable causes. I give money to the Catholic church...does that mean if I am to speak about abortion I have to disclose that I am Catholic? This made up standard seems ridiculous and impossible to which to adhere.

[Jeff Pelline]

Barry,
The difference is that I don't need to pay people to get my ego stroked. LOL.

[Barry Pruett]

Why don't you put that one on a tee for me??? No comment.

The fact of the matter is that George nails it here. When receiving money from charity and tax-free dollars, it should be disclosed that you are acting as a paid advocate...period. You have a direct financial interst in the advocacy. If you are giving money, there is no interest in the advocacy. It is a red-herring designed to impune the messanger who contributes in order to get the topic off of the conflicted one that receives. The liberal way.

[George Rebane]

Wow, thanks to JeffP we have a twofer here. He illustrates another piece of liberal logic, and leaves one more little monument to his wit and wisdom. We will maintain these little pasture pellets as a part of his visitor record.

[Todd Juvinall]

I would like to see where the FUE gets his money too. Perhaps we could then make an informed decision on whether he is a true "unbiased" jour-no-list. I remember when Hillary helped set up Media Matters and then never disclosed she did. It took a real journalist to root out her part in the biz. Of course MM wrote glowing stories about her and other libs and criticized people like Murdoch for owning outlets. The left is just a bunch of whiny blowhards and hypocrisy is their game.

[Jeff Pelline]

Todd,
Congratulations on your engagement!

[Barry Pruett]

George...being that English is not your native language, you have a wonderful wit and amazing command of the words. Very funny.

[Jeff Pelline]

Barry,
This blog should be renamed "Five angry white men"! I rarely even see women comment except Barry's wife in her role as a paid McClintock staffer. How diverse is that? Well, I guess Barry being a 40 something angry white man helps a little. LOL.

[Paul Emery]

George
I think you need another chart.. One that shows special interest giving and special interest receiving. Almost 2 billion dollars was spent last year by the various health related industries in campaign contributions and "donations" to favorable causes. That was not giving from the heart, it was meant to come back a few times over.

[George Rebane]

Paul, I'm not sure I've successfully communicated to you the intent of this category of posts. You have again responed by diverting to not one, but this time two, new topic areas that have nothing to do with the thesis of the post as illustrating a general tenet of liberal thought.

Did you mean to do this on purpose?

[Paul Emery]

It was an expansion of the "giving and receiving" charts to include special interest groups. Why shouldn't they be included? This is more than a Liberal-Conservative topic.

[Todd Juvinall]

When a person gets taxpayer money for some purpose they must disclose. If someone gets money to sell a product, they are a salesman.

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Paul would that also include the 90 billion the Gov has pumped into the private sector to produce globel warming and AB 32 - but George is correct you missed the point or maybe not

[D. King]

Almost 2 billion dollars was spent last year by the various health related industries in campaign contributions and "donations" to favorable causes. That was not giving from the heart, it was meant to come back a few times over.

That's a very sharp, double edged knife Paul.

Did you ever wonder why Anthem Blue Cross sent
out a press release that said rates would rise
39%, just before the Obamacare vote?