What I meant is that, after the ghost of cristmas present, Scrooge expresses his willingness to change, yet it is, apparently, still necessary to put him through the last ghost to make sure he changes his ways.

After showing what happens to Tiny Tim, Scrooge seems like he is willing to change, but no, there is one more thing that is needed to close the deal. If it wasn't needed, then why was it included, and included as the climax of visions? The one meant to solidify any change they desire to affect in Scrooge. His own lonely miserable death.

So, in the end, the final message, the one apparently needed to REALLY change Scrooge is to show him the effects every thing will have on HIM in the end. That no one will care about HIM, and that he will die alone.

If THIS is what was needed to make sure he REALLY changes, and considering the spirits are able to do anything, and seem to know best, it would seem they would know this to be the case, otherwise, again, why do this, and why does Dickens make it the climax of visions?

So, in the end, threatened with his own misery, he truly changes.
Sounds like a good dose of rational self interest.

Is it clear that no one takes her seriously?

She goes after Al be aide he has caught her publically lying. Par for the corse for Ann

Carrie, I think you have brought up a subject which is worth discussing, since this topic, unlike many others that you have introduced, is subject to verification one way or the other without the appeal to supernatural beings.

This book deserves to be dealt with seriously, as it is widely quoted and used as a source. Brooks, the author of the book Who Really Cares is an influential opinion maker, with a definite ideological bent, as head of the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute. Are his findings legitimate? I have no idea. I would want to take a look at the methodology and assumptions behind the study.

What I gather from the Coulter article is:
religious people give more charity than non-religious
secular liberals give more charity than secular conservatives
religious conservatives give more than religious liberals
conservatives as a whole give more than liberals as a whole

These results, if true, are interesting.

An important issue, it would seem to me, is what is meant by charity? (For example, one might argue that donations to one's own church is not as selfless as other kinds of donations)

In any event, here's an interesting reply:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-pet......723.html

I have no doubt that church contributions are included in Brooks's count. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be counted, but it should be clear that they skew the totals.

One suspects that there is a marked difference in contribution rates to certain organizations with charitable tax status, such as Amnesty International, NRA, Birthright, etc.

Just to note that the Huffington Post is a liberal organization, and as I read the article there were a couple of interesting things:

Kristof is a liberal, and he even said in his article (linked from the above link), "if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." But you can't just exclude religious organizations; most humanitarian charities are faith-based.

Yeah, statistics are funny things, and the H.P. column fudges with statistics to make liberals look better than they are. It also focuses on anecdotal evidence to the exclusion of multiple studies that show conservatives are more charitable than liberals.

Carrie

Just to note that Carrie Sue is an ultraconservative, so I invariably know what to expect.

Just sayin'

I just noted Elaine Petrocelli (authoress of the original H.P. article) didn't as much answer the statistics revealed in the surveys as he did spin them and try to redefine them.

"Another friend is a terrific speaker and could make a fortune as a motivational guru. Instead, she travels all over California speaking about the outrageous costs and injustices of the death penalty."

That friend is not being charitable. She's just an activist for a liberal cause.

Her template is that conservatives are evil, i.e., "conservatives who pursued an MBA and went on to participate in Wall Street scams" and presumably business owners who "titans who pride themselves on cutting thousands of employees at each opportunity." She seems to approve of cradle-to-grave government programs that ostensibly take care of people. Charity that is not, and that was the point of Ann Coulter's piece.

Carrie

The initial study is most likely flawed as it counted all donations as charitable. Mormons tithe 10% of their income to the "church". However little of this money actually goes to charitable causes. Same with most all of the moneys taken in by televangelists and "Mega" Churches. So this study could very well show that Conservatives are just more gullible and easier to take in as they think they are giving to worthy causes but instead are just being scammed by guys with plastic hair and white shoes.
Liberals at least take the time and effort to see the money that they donate goes to worthy causes instead of ending up in the basement of the Vatican.

Read some of the questions that remained unanswered here

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_comple......rvatives

But even if it is true (as we all assume) that the study counted tithing and other church contributions, it is interesting to note that that money is ON TOP of other charitable contributions. That in itself is a worthwhile finding.

John

Carrie, liberals are motivated by making money and destruction of the earth. They don't have to give to others because giving to others neither makes them money or contributes to destruction. Liberals are cute and cudley and wear sweaters in the Summer because they are outraged. They threaten to move to France but don't. They love coal burning electric plants and hate hybrids. They want to kill eagles for kriste sakes! Tell you what, start a fund call the "Green" and they will give.

Globally
Reducing
Everything and
Everybody
Now

Egads, we've been infiltrated!

John, contact your local counterparts. Alert L.I.B.E.R.A.L network. I am doing the same.

I'd worry for the planet if Carrie ever strayed from the path of (self)righteousness.

I wonder what Chas. Dickens would tell Ann Coulter?

I dunno, but he'd take a heck of a lot of words to do it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/opinio......lkrugman

Hey, has anyone noticed that “A Christmas Carol” is a dangerous leftist tract? <NB that is sarcasm, for those who cannot recognize it.>

I mean, consider the scene, early in the book, where Ebenezer Scrooge rightly refuses to contribute to a poverty relief fund. “I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing,” he declares. Oh, wait. That wasn’t Scrooge. That was Newt Gingrich — last week. What Scrooge actually says is, “Are there no prisons?” But it’s pretty much the same thing.

Anyway, instead of praising Scrooge for his principled stand against the welfare state, Charles Dickens makes him out to be some kind of bad guy. How leftist is that?

Balducci, you're way off the hook on this one. Scrooge seems to be in favor of the welfare state, at least as far as he pays his taxes and thinks that's enough. "Those who are badly off must go there."

I think that's quite different from the federal government paying unemployed people--yes, for not working--for two or three years. Unemployment insurance payments were supposed to be a stop-gap measure, not a way of life. Today, under the Obama administration, it's plain and straight welfare.

Carrie

In case it was not clear, and apparently it was not, I was excerpting a bit from someone else's article. See the link for the complete thing.

Carrie, I think blaming the Obama administration for the welfare state (if that is what you are doing) is ridiculous. It didn't happen overnight. Whether you agree with it or not, it came to what it is over decades.

Again your argument is severely weakened because you yourself accept assistance from the Government. Why aren't you out there working?
Could it possibly be the reason you continue to be unemployed is the exact same reason many of the recipients of the extended unemployment benefits are still unemployed? There aren't enough jobs out there.
For someone who claims to be a christian you certainly seen to fall way short on the compassion scale.