Everyone seems to like the stories of Robin Hood, which I see from some reserach on the internet have been around for hundreds of years, in variants, of a person who takes from the rich and gives to the poor - yet in reality we get people [political and corporate] who take from the poor to give to the rich......I'd like to open up the conversation on why though most would want 'Robyn Hoode' to be our hero and leader along with his Merry Men, we get angy men who no one really likes. Why? How to change this upside-down reality?

The legends of Robin Hood will never die. Don't believe me? Do you know anyone who hasn't heard of Robin Hood? Didn't think so. Robin Hood has survived through many centuries through tongue only, in the oral story-telling tradition -- now that we're in the Information Age, when even the most banal and inane words of Internet junkies are forever recorded on peoples' hard drives, Robin's life will be immortalized in our minds, in our writing, and in our art. The hard task of just surviving has been completed.

"There is a need in this country [Britain] for a social conscience. And if Robin Hood is not the personification of social conscience, I don't know what is."

-Sheriff Roy Greensmith

Let us then discuss not of his death, but of his eternal life in the minds and hearts of those who have been inspired by him. Robin Hood's staying power rivals that of Aeneas, Odysseus, Beowulf, and other characters passed along in the oral tradition. Perhaps he is even more ubiquitous because of his appeal towards the common man, and through his embracing by Disney. (remember the fox?) Robin Hood is not just a man; he also stands for our ideals and how we must strive for justice even if there's little hope of succeeding. Truth and justice prevail over ignorance and tyranny.

We live in an age where the heavy hand of hostile takeovers and monopoly looms over governments and businesses. For Robin, it was the same, although what he experienced was the actual restriction of human rights to live. Whether or not Robin Hood was an actual man, or merely dozens of different men, does not matter. He is an embodiment of the vigilance of freedom, and even though we may identify certain groups of leaders as being unruly, if we remember Robin Hood and his philosophy, it will help us better put our own situations in context.

Hail Robin, for he reminds us what an exhilaration it should be to live, and live freely. Is it any surprise that William Wallace (Braveheart) is compared so closely with Robin Hood? Yes, there are theories that they are the same person, and there is some information regarding that theory on-site.

If you're interested in learning more about Robin Hood, I strongly suggest that you read Robin Hood, a very thorough and pleasant book by J.C. Holt. Because it delves into every cranny of the legend of Robin Hood and gives the reader a better sense of the greatness of Robin Hood, it made an excellent research tool for my page. It skimps out on the basics, but there are plenty of other resources to get those -- this one concentrates on more specific issues. I have collected a good deal of information on this site from Mr. Holt's book.

"[Robin Hood is] a man who, in a barbarous age, and under a complicated tyranny, displayed a spirit of freedom and independence which has endeared him to the common people, whose cause he maintained (for all opposition to tyranny is the cause of the people), and, in spite of the malicious endeavours of pitiful monks, by whom history was consecrated to the crimes and follies of titled ruffians and sainted idiots, to suppress all record of his patriotic exertions and virtuous acts, will render his name immortal."

-Joseph Ritso
http://www.benturner.com/robinhood/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

Robin Hood is England's most famous outlaw, who robbed from the rich to give to the poor. In Robin Hood's long history, his story has appeared in many forms, from verse to film. His path to outlawry, friends and enemies have been just as diverse. I will first describe the parts of the Robin Hood legend that have remained constant throughout his entire 800 or more year history.

Robin Hood was a Saxon noble, living near the castle of Nottingham. By various means he was forced into a life of banditry, using his cunning and skill-at-arms to relieve bishops, nobles, and servants of the king of gold and jewels levied from the oppressed peasants. Robin collected a band of supporters, his "Merry Men" around him, dressed in green. The members that never cease to appear are Robin himself, Maid Marian, Little John, and Friar Tuck. Along with being a middle-ages Communist, Robin spends his time fighting the cruel Sheriff of Nottingham, and, ultimately, King John, who had usurped the throne from the rightful King, Richard I (Coeur de Lion or Lionheart).
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/lucyjack/...hood/story.html

Peter...what we have now are ROBBING HOODS (as in hoodlums). I was reminded
of that today when I filled up my gas tank for $50.50. It's all about oil.

Yesterday my wife picked up our drug prescriptions. The cost was over $100,
and we must pay or die...lining the pockets of people like Chaney. It's about drugs.

...and include military hardware. The military is the biggest dollar robber...from
my pocket to the MIC hoods.

Jack

Try filling your gas tank up in the UK. Costs me > £55 each time... about $100.



Now you do have my sympathy... due mainly to my good health, not the fair and equitable health system we enjoy here in the UK

Welcome to rip-off Britain.

Such a nice place... if it were but rearranged and made to represent the wishes of the many rather than corporate greedy and the wealthy elite.

But I don't ever see this happening without some form of hugely massive psychological shock to break people away from their comfort zone and substance dependency on the drug money. In my experience most people couldn't give a damn about these topics (that we discuss here) and couldn't give a toss about the bigger picture of how things are really run (usually to their detriment).

I agree with you Jack that we are surrounded by 'Robbing Hoods' in power and in the Corporations. What saddens me most is the average person is starting to [if not long since] suffer, but they don't see the real source of their problems, the threat of total collapse for themselves and family, nor do they act. As to the Brits.....the less-educated, as many in America, are totally without a clue - not only to who the oppressor is, but what 'planet' they are on. In the city I live mobs of these barely eductated louts come on cheap flights to get drunk here, as one can buy ten! beers for the price of one in England - and of equal quality! I come across these drunken lowlifes [who care not for the art, architechture, history, etc. here] in the center. Usually barely able to stand-up; not infrequently with underwear or some such on their heads; making total idiots of themselves. I asked one group who asked me directions to a mini-brewery if they knew what city they were in. They took the question seriously, but of the ten none could name the city they were in, nor the country....how can people like that be expected to do political / economic / social / class analysis. There are some in my country who wouldn't know much more...but they stay home and shop or watch TV. The globalized circus has many hypnotized.

18 February 2005

Data Show Americans Give to Charity, Volunteer
Scholar argues that faith, charity and politics are linked

By Jeffrey Thomas
Washington File Staff Writer



The stereotype many Europeans hold of Americans as uncharitable towards the poor is wrong, according to a scholar who has studied the link between faith, charity and politics for many years.

Another stereotype --conservatives are hard-hearted and less charitable and compassionate than liberals -- is also untrue, according to Professor Arthur Brooks. He discussed his findings in a February 16 talk at Washington’s Heritage Foundation, a research and educational institute whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies.

Brooks’ address was titled, “Are Americans Selfish? The Bond Between Faith, Philanthropy and Healthy Democracies.” He answered his own question with a “no” --Americans are generous, said Brooks, an associate professor of public administration and director of the nonprofit studies program at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Affairs.

He cited research data showing that Americans are, on average, significantly more generous than most other nationalities. His comparative data have been challenged by another scholar as skewed by American tax incentives, incentives that generally do not exist in Europe. Acknowledging this, Brooks defended his analysis by suggesting that robust tax incentives may account for as much as 15 percent of American charitable contributions, which he says does not alter the validity of his comparison.

The 70 percent of American households that make charitable contributions give, on average, $1,800 dollars per year, or 3.5 percent of their income. This amounts to about $180 billion dollars. When contributions from foundations, bequests and corporations are added, total charitable contributions in the United States amount to over $240 billion.

Only about one-third of this giving is to religious institutions.

The United States is also a nation of volunteers. In 2000, the most recent year for which data are available, 44 percent of Americans engaged in volunteer work. The dollar value of their efforts was estimated to be $240 billion. Volunteers and givers are in general the same people.

Why are these Americans generous with their money and time?

Brooks presented demographic portraits of those who give and those who do not.

Givers regularly attend religious services and are skeptical of government, particularly government efforts to redistribute income. The poorest and richest households give the most as a percentage of income.

Those who attend church regularly are much more likely to give and to volunteer even to secular causes, he said.

Nongivers, according to Brooks, tend to be young, unreligious, unmarried males who believe government should redistribute income.

Brooks noted that Utah is the state with the highest average per-capita charitable contributions, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas.

Political ideology is not the key to charity, Brooks said. Religious faith coupled with skepticism of government’s capacities seems the most important characteristic of those who give. Brooks thinks low levels of private giving and volunteering in Europe reflect European social democratic and secularist attitudes.

When he asked students in a class he teaches at Moscow State University the reason the rates of charitable giving in Russia are low, Brooks said the students responded that their parents have no religious faith and, moreover, think “the government should do it.”

Asked whether tax incentives in the United States affect charitable contributions in a positive way, Brooks said that secular giving is highly sensitive to tax incentives, while giving to the poor is highly insensitive. He noted that tax incentives amount to indirect subsidies to charities amounting to $37 billion dollars in 2003.

The propensity to give he characterized as a “quality-of-life issue” because those who give are happier and healthier and their communities are far better places to live. “Reliance on the welfare state has costs,” Brooks said. Indeed, he closed by saying that, in his view charity is a key ingredient of freedom and democracy.

Brooks’ talk can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev021605a.cfm

(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Americans give record $295B to charity
Updated 222d ago | Comments94 | Recommend30 E-mail | Save | Print |


Enlarge USA TODAY file photo

Church collection plates must've been full this year as Americans donated $96.82 billion to religious organizations.



HELPING HAND

Charity Navigator rates philanthropies based on efficiency and responsiveness.






Digg del.icio.us Newsvine Reddit Facebook What's this? NEW YORK (AP) — Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year, setting a record and besting the 2005 total that had been boosted by a surge in aid to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and the Asian tsunami.
Donors contributed an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006, a 1% increase when adjusted for inflation, up from $283.05 billion in 2005. Excluding donations for disaster relief, the total rose 3.2%, inflation-adjusted, according to an annual report released Monday by the Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.

Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2% rise as stocks rose more than 10% on an inflation-adjusted basis.

"What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said.

Individuals gave a combined 75.6% of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4%.

The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8%, went to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9%, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries.

About 65% of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed.

"It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism. Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.

Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

Mega-gifts, which Giving USA considers to be donations of $1 billion or more, tend to get the most attention, and that was true last year especially.

Investment superstar Warren Buffett announced in June 2006 that he would give $30 billion over 20 years to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of that total, $1.9 billion was given in 2006, which helped push the year's total higher.

Gaudiani said that gift reflects a growing focus on using donated money efficiently and effectively.

"I think it's also a strategic commitment to upward mobility exported to other countries, in the form of improved health and stronger civil societies," she said.

The Gates Foundation has focused on reducing hunger and fighting disease in developing countries as well as improving education in the U.S. Without Buffett's pledge, it had an endowment of $29.2 billion as of the end of 2005.

Meanwhile, companies and their foundations gave less in 2006, dropping 10.5% to $12.72 billion. Jolly said corporate giving fell because companies had been so generous in response to the natural disasters and because profits overall were less strong in 2006 over the year before.

The Giving USA report counts money given to foundations as well as grants the foundations make to non-profits and other groups, since foundations typically give out only income earned without spending the original donations.

One imagines that a conservative "thought" tank like Heritage Foundation would be inclined to slant the information it publishes.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...tage_Foundation

One of the principal individuals funding the HF is bilionaire and Mellon family scion, Richard Mellon Scaife, formerly associated with "Forum World Features" a CIA front. HF is also closely connected to the Mont Pelerin Society that has more than a few connections to ultra right type bordering on fascists, like Otto von Hapsburg. Mont Pelerin s also the home of the "Chicago: school of economics -- another member, Roger Pearson, is a British race scientist.

http://www.watch.pair.com/cnp.html#montpelerin

Overall, nice types.

Sorry, a most revoltingly unethical post. Maybe we should go 'all the way' and let employers [elites] give us what 'salary' they will beknight us with, rather than have a contractual one...or number of hours....or word conditions. This is the absolutely regressive reactionary ideal. A society [government run/oprganized] is morally responsible for the welfare of ALL of its citizens [from which it gets its mandate] NOT the small elite who have robbed the mass of the population and has tried from time before recording to keep it and enslave the others. We [the People] will demand our due....not sit with a beggers bowl and wait for the charity of the rich. The rich are the parasites, not the trend setters. You'd have loved life before the Enlightenment...or post the next false-flag op when we have martial law in the USA. The social contract with its citizens has been stripped-out of the USA. It is State socialsim for the corporations and financial elite and free-market capitalism for the rest. By any fair assessment, it is called Fascism. 
No religion nor moral philosophical tradition is a proponent of this...but the N
oCons.

Yep it's entirely unethical that Americans are far more generous when it comes to providing for the welfare of others, both at a personal and corporate level, than any other country on earth.

What a completely and utterly ridiculous response to my post. And I'll toss in revolting.

Implied is that 'charity' can take the place of social services and guarentees provided by the government. I do NOT believe the slave holders should have been able to decide who was a slave and who not [some did free a few slaves] - but we outlawed it. Same for poverty and illness. We have the money to go invade and kill nations and people we shouldn't but not the will [and thus not the money for] helpin all in our own society and even those who need help outside. I do NOT believe in society from the top-down; but bottom up....and human rights are not for begging bowls, but a shared part of a compasionate and moral society. 'Charity' is fine, but NO replacement - as those who are the wrong color; nationality or political bent will not be given any... What you are proposing, IMO, is the privitazation of social welfare, social services, even social justice - that is the business of the government....perhaps its only legitimate business, at that. Rich nation - poor morality and all the money is increasingly going to the ultra-rich by stealth. Most of our money goes to wars and 'national security' nonsense and worse. The USA gives a very small % of its money to help programs internationally and now even they have unfair 'conditions' to many. Same for many 'charities' at home. It is a right-wing magic show to hold up charity giving....which to some extent will increase and is high because there are almost NO social services anymore....shame on the richest (morally) poor nation on Earth. You'll also find that people with less money give a greater percentage as 'charity' - as they have some feeling and knowledge of what it is like to do without and struggle. I say take from the rich what they stole from the poor and middle-class and redistribute it, as needed, when needed. That is what civilization is...not the genocidal, enrich the rich only mayham our society has increasingly become [cloaked in all the nice rhetoric and mythology]. You can hope for Enron-type criminals to give to charity...but they will only by their tenth yacht and fifteenth skihome....and give a % to the CIA/WB/IMF/WTO and other corrupt and manipulative organizations to further squeeze what wealth is in 'poor' countries out into their banks. Keep the charity. Give people justice, equality, health, shelter, education, information and a civil society for all. While welfare [in the broadest sense of the word] for the average American is decreasing and a greater number are desperate for some, corporate welfare is on a fast curve upward! Forward into the past.

Cutting to the chase, and the reason why lemkins "perfect" world is destined for total failure.