Well, well, well, what do we have here? The Massaschusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy has issued their annual Generosity Index 2003. This report catalogues state Generosity indexes based on Having/Giving formulations. The states below are listed, in order, the top states in terms of generosity. Notice anything peculiar about the top 20 most charitable states? Give up? They are all states WON by GW Bush, confirming the widely held belief that liberals are only good at spending other people's money. For the record, 15 of the bottom 20 LEAST generous states were won by Al Gore. Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy Highest Generosity Indexes (Top 20): Mississippi Arkansas South Dakota Oklahoma Alabama Tennessee Louisiana Utah South Carolina Idaho North Dakota Wyoming Texas West Virginia Nebraska North Carolina Florida Kansas Missouri Georgia
It's based on charitable donations reported on tax returns, so yes, church money is included. It's also as a percentage of income, not raw dollars, and it's been well-established across geographies that lower-income people tend to give a higher percentage of their income to charity than higher-income people.
What a joke. The rich states, BY DEFINITION, can't be considered generous. Even if every single resident of a rich state gave 100% of his income to charity.
It's Having Rank - Giving Rank. So, for example, the highest the richest state could score would be 0. Even if every person in the state gave 100% of his income to charity, the best they could do is score right below Kentucky. If everyone in Mississippi gave 0% - THAT IS NOTHING - to charity, they would have the exact same generosity ranking as the richest state that gave EVERYTHING. Really, this is the dumbest thing Ian has posted yet, and I'm including the "inside information" about Saddam being murdered.
I'd like to see this list cross-referenced against the number of fat, perma-tanned millionaire "religious advisors" in each of those states.
Actually, Ian's chart is interesting in another way. It seems that the Republican party has become the party of the very poor white population.
well then i'm going to suggest that much of that donated money can hardly be considered philanthropy - keep the fodder comin' ian
life's much easier using Ian's correlation methods. I have used two pens from the same box at work for a couple months. It these couple months, I've received a pay raise and I have not been fired. Luckily for me, I have the entire box of these powerful pens. I need to keep a couple, but I'm willing to sell the rest to any one who is interested for $20 a pen. Remember these pens are proven to get raises and prevent you from being fired. PM for shipping information.
Again, these states could finish high on the list without hardly any charity giving, religious or otherwise.
I happen to know that the people of New Jersey are VERY generous. They'll give you the finger seven days a week out on the highways. And New Hampshire being dead last is no surprise. The people up there just hate giving it up. No sales tax. No income tax. They pay for schools with bake sales and donations dropped into (mostly) empty water jugs on store counters. They're so cheap they only have like 5 miles of beach on the Atlantic.
Oh my god. When I read Ben's post originally, I figured he couldn't possibly be interpreting the chart correctly. This reminds me of that chart that Franken hilariously breaks down in "Lies..." Beyond meaningless. For Ian's sake, let's hope he just saw the title and didn't actually glance at the "methodology."
Oh yeah, well I've got the magic pair of boxer shorts that I wore while I watched the 2002 CL final match in Glasgow which guaranteed the win by Real Madrid. Alas, they were lost in the furthest reaches of my laundry pile for months (hence their elimination by Juventus in the semis in '03). However I've now found them, and I am willing to part with them for $20. Hell, maybe it'll guarantee Ian the complete dissappearance of the Democratic party by '04.