Comments on: Lies, damn lies and statistics

By: Anita Bernstein

Anita Bernstein — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:56:15 +0000

Seconded, Nonprofiteer. Furthermore, Kristof says *zilch* to “raise awareness” about sexual abuse and exploitation inside his own country. Fewer exotic junkets for him on that beat, I guess. And a US focus would make it harder for him to dismiss the feminist advocacy at which he likes to scoff. This advocacy goes on in Asia too, but there’s less media coverage and he can pretend not to see it.

Like most columnists with a perch on the Times editorial page, he’s a waste of ink and bytes.

By: Nonprofiteer

Nonprofiteer — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:03:18 +0000

There certainly aren’t enough people talking about the persistence of modern slavery, including sex slavery; but Kristof’s columns on the subject are entirely too self-congratulatory for my taste, not to mention having an unsavory undertone of excitement. Nothing would prevent him from reporting this story–even ad nauseum–without entering into the sex trade himself, however peripherally.

Likewise, nothing would prevent him from reporting a story about how in fact liberals AREN’T less generous than conservatives as such; but instead he chose to go for the man-bites-dog headline to make it appear that those of us on the left don’t grasp the importance of charity. That’s nonsense, and I resent it. And while I’m prepared to double-check a reporter’s assertions, I also expect him to operate from a position of intellectual honesty.

By: Betsy Stone

Betsy Stone — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:50:36 +0000

I have a different perspective on Mr. Kristoff’s column, which I read (in full) at the time. I thought he made it clear that the statistical picture changed when donations to churches were taken out of the picture. What I took away from the article is that liberals (like me) should make sure that our concerns and words are followed by action, which include charitable giving. Any nudge to make giving a more automatic impulse seems to me a good thing. In addition, I view it as my responsibility to check out whatever a columnist or journalist writes when reporting someone else’s research conclusions. And while I’m out here on my blogosphere ledge, I don’t agree with your conclusion about his columns (and personal actions) re: sex slaves. Does the potential damage from rescuing one slave (and resultant effect on the market price of sex slaves) outweigh the good that he is doing to raise awareness of this problem? Seems to me there aren’t enough voices beating the drum about the prevalence of this problem and his platform in the NY Times and other papers is being used appropriately.

By: Yana Davis

Yana Davis — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:20:20 +0000

Nonprofit contributions ought to be figured, for all public information gathering, into two categories, as the Nonprofiteer has implied.

Contributions-other-than-religious should be a separate category and the measure of true charitable giving.

Including gifts to donors’ churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., along with gifts to United Way, Sierra Club, etc., mixes apples with oranges.

By: Nonprofiteer

Nonprofiteer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:38:36 +0000

I’m sure as you say that Brooks’ books have been cooked to assure the right-wingers-are-better outcome, so that Focus on the Family is considered a secular cause. Moreover, Kristof’s concession about the generosity of liberals is buried deep within the column–and any journalist knows that burying the lede is a deliberate strategy for changing the story.

By: Nonprofiteer

Nonprofiteer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:35:26 +0000

I’m sure he’ll find it next time he does a vanity Google search.

By: Nonprofiteer

Nonprofiteer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:34:08 +0000

I don’t question the generosity of churchgoers (though I have my doubts about the validity of any research that purports to prove a direct causal relationship between churchgoing and hard work–there are simply too many intervening factors for an assertion of causality to be persuasive). But, in turn, I don’t expect people to question the generosity of non-churchgoers, who believe the support they provide for “care to people from all classes of society” purchases more when it doesn’t go through the hands of institutions with mortgage payments and staff salaries of their own.

And being in good spiritual health (assuming any of us could agree on what that means) may have benefits, but achieving that sort of health doesn’t necessarily require participation in an institution devoted to religiosity. The time I spend in the theater or at a botanic garden puts me in touch with the Infinite just as well (if not better) than spending that same time in a church/synagogue/mosque.

By: Anita Bernstein

Anita Bernstein — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:26:18 +0000

Well, Kristof did say
“According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.”
Still, I don’t trust NDK or his Mr. Brooks an inch. Kristof has made his name asserting again and again that liberals are really illiberal, feminists don’t care about women (i.e. the teen prostitutes with whom he is obsessed), and it’s evangelicals who repair the material world. O what a paradox! I assume conservatives’ “secular causes” include right-wing political activist 501(c)(3)s.

By: Scott Jones

Scott Jones — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:14:15 +0000

Good points – you should send in your comments to Mr Kristof.

By: Chrissy

Chrissy — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:19:09 +0000

Churches provide free spiritual care to people from all classes of society. Being in good spiritual health has many benefits. For instance, women who go to church end up working harder at their careers (http://workinprogress.blogs.time.com/2008/04/15/girls_who_go_to_church_work_ha/) I don’t currently give to a church, but I don’t question the generous nature of those who do.