Partisan Charities

I'm sick of the discussion about who is covering the donations more, and who is giving the most money. Why have we devolved into a society where EVERYTHING is about who is big, better, best? My charitable donations can piss farther than your charitable donations. Please just get over it, pray for those who need it, and do your best to help.

I must say a really good question was asked at the press conference involving Kofi Annan and Jan Egeland. Kofi was asked "What are your thoughts on that fact that all we can do sometimes just isn't enough?" His response was "That is sadly true, the needs are so great." Sometimes you just can't do enough, but we are obligated as Human Beings to help out our less fortunate brothers. God's first commandment to his creation: "Go, Be fruitful and multiply". Not to mention his incarnated recent commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself". Since when is helping other people out political fodder?

I'm an avid reader of Wizbang!, Little Green Footballs, Instapundit, Powerline, and a few others, but sometimes those people make me sick, such as Paul (at Wizbang!). He's claiming that he just posted something for discussion, but he devolved into name-calling himself, logical fallacies (red herring, straw man, and a few others). Paul, please, for the sake of the other conservatives out there, calm down and have an adult, mature discussion.

Appendix
The logical Fallacies mentioned above are as follows:
Red Herring Fallacy: is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. He or she then finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established. By so doing, the arguer purports to have won the argument.
Argument: A is not B
Premesis: B is C, and C is D, therefore A cannot be B

Straw Man Fallacy: is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been demolished.
Argument: A causes B
Premesis: Since A is extreme A, Extreme A causes Extreme B to happen, Extreme B is B, therefore A causes B

One of my favorites:
Argument against the Person: This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but to the first person himself.
This has 3 forms:
ad hominem abusive
The second person responds to the first person's argument by verbally abusing the first person.
ad hominem circumstantial
Begins the same way as ad hominem abusive, but instead of heaping verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent's argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent. By doing so the respondent hopes to show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should therefore not be taken seriously.
tu quoque
Begins the same way as the other two varieties of the ad hominem argument, except that the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith. The second arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the latter's conclusion. In effect:
Child to Parent: Your argument that I should stop stealing candy from the corner store is no good. You told me yourself just a week ago that you, too, stole candy when you were a kid.

Of course, those are just a few of the fallacies displayed by many many arguers on both sides.
Source:
Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic: 6th Ed. Wadsworth Publishing Co. Belmont, CA: 1997