Man, even with facts you argue that someone is wrong and you are right. Look it up. How did Brooks sample this data? If he used the red/blue state logic then refer to the other post with links. You cannot make a judgment on who and how much based on voting results for a given state. Just not possible to draw that conclusion solely based on that data. If a state is Red by voting win and charity giving is high in that state, it does not mean that conservatives give more. The losing liberal voters could be the ones donating more money and making the state look more charitable under a Red label. We don't know. How did Brooks find out who gave and at what levels? Also, was the giving based on actual dollars or percentage of income. How big was the data set? Did it factor in time or materials donations? What is considered charity? Is donating monies to a theater group charity? How about thge local youth league? Or to the police/fireman fund? Even with all those questions and even if you concede the data to be good, the actually differences are very small when it comes to saying who is the more charitable.
Oh and nobody gives their party preference when donating blood so how was that data collected. In what cities/states was this data collected? A random survey could not possibly get any relevant data since no one remembers the exact amount of giving at any one time. I can't remember how much I gave to charity with any degree of accuracy from one year to next. The whole study is flawed and a whopper of a reach, but used over and over by the right to try and paint the liberal as hypocritical. Sorry, that doesn't fly in reality.