Friday, July 29th 2005
Fanatics
Neil A. Cook has a cute piece of commentary in today’s Berkeley Daily Planet, “‘Faith-Based’ a Cover for Fanaticism“:
Take “faith based initiative” for instance. Please.
You couldn’t very well call it “formation of state religion.”
Then, during the middle of the last century, we watched other predominantly Christian nations give rise to one compassionate and considerate leader after another: Franco (Spain), Mussolini (Italy), Hitler (Germany), Stalin (Russia).
It’s taken us a bit longer, but we’re finally on the road to such bold and imaginative leadership right here…
That little term, ‘faith based initiative’ is a subtle start.
First we funnel tax money to religious schools. It’s worked well in Afghanistan in Syria and in Saudi Arabia and it can certainly work here. We ‘educate’ an entire generation to ignore science, ignore facts and concentrate instead on religion. The right Religion. The Religious Right. Pretty soon all that’s left is the Right…
But remember, the September 11 missions were ‘faith based initiatives’ as well. So perhaps that other alternative has something to do with reigning in fanatics of every persuasion.
We can start with fanatics who think school vouchers will lead to the Holocaust. I also believe that Stalin was atheist, but that doesn’t really matter. Anyway, we’ll let Mr. Cook believe what he wants. The main thing we should be suspicious of is ’state based initiatives,’ and they come in many different forms, religious or not.
Doesn’t “formation of state religion” include… you know… formation of state religion?
Comment by Beetle — 7/29/2005 @ 4:31 pm
As you can probably guess, I consider this administration anemic, and even counter productive when it comes to religious issues.
But for the sake of argument lets say that real effort is being made. For the formation to be complete the republicans would have to win in 06 and 08. And that I highly doubt.
Comment by HB — 7/29/2005 @ 5:09 pm
And 10 and 12 and 14 and 16 and… and also they’ll have to start acting a lot different than how Republicans act.
My complaint is that he’s played all his cards already. What is he going to say if folks really do start trying to form a state religion? He’s got nowhere to go. It’s like calling a spade an industrial drill.
Comment by Beetle — 7/29/2005 @ 5:21 pm
As you can probably guess, I consider this administration anemic, and even counter productive when it comes to diminishing the state issues.
Religion should be a personal/community thing. I don’t think there are such things as religious issues that the government should concern itself with. Other than protecting freedom of religion.
I think the author of this article is the real fanatic here. He seems to think that religion is inherently a bad thing. Can you honestly believe that Christianity leads to Hitlers and Stalins? The problem there was too much state power. Any ideology can embrace power for authoritarian purposes: Communism, Islamic Fundamentalism, Environmentalism, etc. It’s the desire for control that causes problems in this world.
Anyway, I support school vouchers not as some kind of religious measure, but as a stepping stone toward school privatization. A lot of people blame religion when they should really be blaming the government.
Comment by patr — 7/29/2005 @ 5:37 pm
assuming the neocons are voted out in the next 2 elections the republican party will do plenty of PR to basically be respectable again in 2010.
Comment by HB — 7/29/2005 @ 6:15 pm
Well you’re assuming that there’s only neocons and social conservatives in the Republican party. You’re leaving out moderates, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, etc. I also don’t think the “neocon” foreign policy goals that you despise so much will be changing anytime soon, as about 80-90% of the party agrees with them.
Comment by patr — 7/29/2005 @ 6:22 pm
i don’t see where. the neocons have temporary hold of the party and far too many people are plain old party hacks to stop making excuses and starts demanding results. whether it is fiscal conservatism or social justice most of those people genuinely care about the state of the nation. Bush and his backers seem a little too eager to gamble on our world prestige, military strength and economic resilience. now all are buckling under the weight.
right now Bush’s approval is at 45-48%, direction of the country is at 35-40%, and iraq approval is at 40%.
lots of people are pissed at the open border, CAFTA, the deficits and Plamegate. I hope that’s enough to slap some sense into the party, but defeat is the sweetest way to do it.
a bunch of polls
more on McCain
more
Comment by HB — 7/29/2005 @ 7:08 pm
This article from Reason:
Comment by patr — 7/29/2005 @ 7:23 pm
you don’t need much to swing the election, republicans have plenty of reasons to send a message to Washington, even if there are 60-80 percent sheep.
so will see when we start pulling out of Iraq and our tail is between our legs, 300 billion in the hole and more overall terrorism how many people will wake up.
Comment by HB — 7/29/2005 @ 8:09 pm
Economy:
Last year it grew at more than 4.2%, which is higher than it was during Clinton’s last quarter (2.1%). Unemployment is at 5% (which is considered full employment) with approximately four million more jobs now in the United States since Bush took office. In general the economy is doing better than it was in 1996 (but not 1998 and 1999), and all of this with a very low inflation rate.
Elections:
As far as defeat slapping some sense into a party, the Democrats don’t seem to have learned anything from the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections when they succesfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s too early too tell now about 2006 and 2008 but they don’t look all that promising for the Democrats. Their only good news is that there is in general an anti-incumbent mood and there are more Republican incumbents than Democrats.
Opinions on Iraq:
Summary of a more recent poll: July 12-13
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162531,00.html
1. 64 percent of Americans think the Iraqi people are better off.
2. About half (51 percent) think U.S. troops should stay in Iraq “as long as it takes,”.
P.S.: In general Bush’s approval ratings are between 45% and 51%. Many polls are now asking all adults, instead of just registered or likely voters, and Republicans are more likely to both register and vote than Democrats (Bush’s approval ratings are typically about 3% higher with registered voters).
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 8/8/2005 @ 4:43 pm
yeah right
the people in charge are lucky that there are those who swallow bullshit willingly. (I was always led to believe that full employement was 4% unemployment, but I guess I missed the memo.) It’s sad that part-time jobs, bugrer flipping, sub-living wage salaries and discouraged workers make you content as long as the numbers are boosted.
Comment by HB — 8/8/2005 @ 9:00 pm
It’s sad that you’re always looking for bad news
and the negative side of everything.
When Bush entered the Whit House, real compensation (that is wages plus benefits) was growing at 2.8 percent. During the first quarter of this year, it grew by 3.9%.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 8/9/2005 @ 10:20 am
why demand top performace of our government? let’s just make lackluster seems better!
Comment by HB — 8/9/2005 @ 11:24 pm
HB: What are the unemployment rates of the European welfare states that you want America to be more like? Look them up if you want to know what “lackluster” really means.
Comment by patr — 8/10/2005 @ 12:04 am
HB, you’re right. This might be the best economy we’ve had in the last twenty years, and the United States is doing much better than the rest of the industrialized world, which is just emerging from a global recession, but America can still do better. We need to make the tax cuts, which have caused much of this growth (and made the rates more progressive) made permanent. This includes the death tax, which is also the primary reason why most family businesses don’t last more than one or two generations anymore. We also badly need to reform the tax code. The current system is far too complicated with many loopholes. A flatter tax would be more equitable and ultimately bring in more revenues with less cost to the taxpayers.
The major reason we know the economy is doing well is that the Democrats won’t talk about it anymore. Early on, they constantly blamed Bush for it. Then they talked about a jobless recovery. Then Democrats said that the economy was going well but the high oil prices would cause a recession. Then nothing.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 8/10/2005 @ 10:31 am
Is the size of the deficit no longer a variable in the relative wellbeing of the economy?
Comment by cw — 8/10/2005 @ 2:03 pm
We need to raise taxes back, so that we can start living with our means (at least make a show that our bonds are still good. A bond is a promise; the big boy spender club must learn to keep that promise). The top 2% of the population are not struggling under the burden of taxes. This is an age of sacrifice so I’m sure the millionaires and billionaires can cut the nation (that allowed them to be rich in the first place) a little more of their pie. We are at war! It is not cheap!
Taxes were raised under Clinton and it spurred one of the greatest expansions in the recent history. This knee jerk reaction to tax cuts being the greatest thing ever is nothing more than party hackery.
Comment by HB — 8/10/2005 @ 3:31 pm
The overwhelming majority of liberal and socialist economists say that tax cuts stimulate the economy and tax hikes hurt it. The reason why the deficit will be shrinking next year is that like in the 1980s, tax revenues in the United States has actually increased. In Europe for instance, Ireland now has one of the largest standards of living since they cut their tax rates in half (which ended up doubling tax revenues). Previously, Ireland was one of the poorest.
As for Clinton, his tax hikes damaged the economy. His luxury tax increases for instance reduced government revenues and increased unemployment (since much fewer luxury goods were being produced due to the dramatic drop in demand when the prices were increased). Actually, it wasn’t until after the Republicans took over Congress that the economy starting doing very well.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 8/10/2005 @ 5:13 pm
You just proved my point right there. Common sense is something you don’t use. If tax cuts are always a great thing than why don’t we cut taxes ALL to zero? Have you ever heard contractionary and expansionary fiscal policy?
Well if things are indeed going this amazingly great than it mean that we really can raise taxes and no longer be in debt.
Being a hack, of course, you really don’t want to admit that things were indeed good in the late 90’s. This same party taht you give credit to giving us a good economy is spending like there is no tomorrow, President and all. What is it that they have done in the 90’s that worked so damn well? They didn’t cut taxes.
Comment by HB — 8/11/2005 @ 9:58 am
The reason we don’t cut taxes to zero is that despite the fact that the economy would be booming, government revenues would have to be obtained from somewhere else. There in fact have been some serious proposals recently to completely eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.
If we raise taxes then the economy will not do as well and we will get less revenues from taxes. The easiest way to pay off the debt would be to hold spending increases to only three times the rate of inflation.
I previously stated “In general the economy is doing better than it was in 1996 (but not 1998 and 1999), and all of this with a very low inflation rate.”
As far as spending goes, I’m disgusted that Congress has no self control and Bush has not done nearly enough to keep them in line. However, the Democrats have been attacking Bush for not spending enough!
As for the late 90s, capital gains taxes were cut. The economy did well since the federal government mostly left it alone, and Greenspan manipulated the interest rates. Probably the smartest thing Clinton did was not firing Greenspan.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 8/11/2005 @ 10:49 am
actually, HB, what they did in the 90s that they arent doing now was limit spending. do you think prosperity in that period was due to Clinton? remember all money is doled out by the House.
during the Reagan years, massive debt piled up despite all-time high tax revenues (and very low tax rates) due to congressional spending of a democratic majority.
Comment by thomas — 8/11/2005 @ 10:53 am
um, yeah, what michael said.
Comment by thomas — 8/11/2005 @ 10:55 am
I don’t give Clinton all the credit, eventhough there was a greater commitment to econoic responsibility back than.
back in the 80’s they also raised the payroll tax, so what’s the point of income tax cuts? *cough* hand outs *cough*
Comment by HB — 8/11/2005 @ 11:09 am