Politics As Usual

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.wistv.com/global/story.as...Type=Printable

[Sen Hollins alleged antisemitic article]

I read that, and found nothing I could consider as anti-semitic.

Stoopid, yes, but not in a racist sort of way.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Hunh? I fail to see how a society that managed to conquer as much of the known world as Alexander the Great, and whose achievements put the Christian West to shame for centuries, is inherently handicapped in relation to Christianity. If anything, it is handicapped in relation to secular modernity. In other words, your sources suck.

But when, Atticus?

Islam conquered as much of the known world as Alexander the Great, but it was done conquering by the end of the middle ages. A societal shift then came about (it may be improper to tie it directly to the religion, but it's hard not to with Islam because of the unity of religion and the state in many Islamic realms) that stopped innovation.

I don't think Islam is inherently handicapped. I'm just noting that something stopped the innovation and expansion.

Remember, the ancestors of the Amish used to be pretty clever at coming up with new stuff too, and then just -- stopped.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
In but not of, sonny. Your vaunted golden age achievements were managed by cultures taken over by Islamics, and only in spite of Islam. In other words, your sources suck.

I'm rapidly getting the impression that, to you, everything good is definitionally the product of a culture, while everything bad is definitionally the product of a dogma.

In that context, your idiosyncratic use of "Islamics," which to date has managed to produce an easy "out" for you when you're called on your repeated failures to distinguish between Muslims and Islamicists, is starting to look more and more like a slur.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Setting aside the obvious issues with the treatment of women in the Catholic church that Hank already pointed out, I'm saying that it was not the Catholics who drove the mass expansion of Europe and North America's economies in the 17th and 18th centuries. Which isn't to say they didn't participate, but only that their participation was in reaction to an ethic that arose form protestant dogmas. Protestants started working hard because Luther and Calvin told them that was how to get into heaven. Catholics started working harder because a) a little bit of Calvin rubbed off and b) their protestant neighbors were getting rich, and the Catholics are no fools.

It's not a criticism of the Catholic religion, but there wasn't the dogmatic impetus that there was for early protestants.

To be more accurate, Luther told them to work hard or they would go to Hell. There was no promise of Heaven in original Lutheran dogma. Calvin said that people were born in a state of grace or not. In other words, you were either going to Heaven or Hell at birth, and nothing you could do would change that.

It was the fine German and Scot burghers who decreed that it was by their hard work and apparent piety that the Elect could be identified on Earth. Hence, Max Weber actually made a big fucking mistake in attributing the work ethic to religious dogma. It was actually people once again manipulating religious dogma for economic reasons. Imagine that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...1507&printer=1

Not sure on whether I agree with this, but I think I do.

Any release would be outrageous. What part of "strategic" don't the dems understand? There is nothing to suggest that prices reflect a temporary shock. Demand for oil is high; production of oil is flat. Release from teh SPR will, at best, temporarily reduce those prices, only to see them bounce up again when the SPR is depleted (or we stop discharging from it). At that point, we'll be in a worse position to respond to a genuine shock, such as a blown up suez canal or something.

I love the Democratic position on gas prices:

"What are you doing Mr. president to keep gas prices low for working americans?"

Uh, trying to bring more domestic production into play, but being stymied by Democratic objections? Thanks, JFK. I know it's not your fault--you don't own any SUVs after all.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I don't think Islam is inherently handicapped. I'm just noting that something stopped the innovation and expansion.

As long as we're both saying it's not an inherent handicap, I think we agree that the decline was gradual in relation to the rise of the West. The West was probably passing the Islamic world by about 1540 or so. But I still don't see how the military and administrative failures that led to the losses of Spain, etc. were related to any dogmatic shift, which is how I would see the religion "causing" the economic stagnation. I don't think the converse has had all that profound effect in the same regions. For example, the rise of a secular Turkish republic has probably been a good thing, but I wouldn't say Turkey is leaps-and-bounds better off under the republic than under the Ottoman Empire, economically speaking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
To be more accurate, Luther told them to work hard or they would go to Hell. There was no promise of Heaven in original Lutheran dogma. Calvin said that people were born in a state of grace or not. In other words, you were either going to Heaven or Hell at birth, and nothing you could do would change that.

It was the fine German and Scot burghers who decreed that it was by their hard work and apparent piety that the Elect could be identified on Earth. Hence, Max Weber actually made a big fucking mistake in attributing the work ethic to religious dogma. It was actually people once again manipulating religious dogma for economic reasons. Imagine that.

You seem to be saying that Max Weber made a big mistake in locating the source of the religious dogma in Luther and Calvin rather than in the subsequent beliefs of the fine German and Scot burghers. If they believed that the Elect could be identified by hard work and apparent piety, and then worked hard and were pious, doesn't that show their culture giving them an economic advantage. So the culture was influenced by the underlying economic realities, but what else is new? Would the Sioux have felt the same way about buffalo if they had lived in the Everglades?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Any release would be outrageous. What part of "strategic" don't the dems understand? There is nothing to suggest that prices reflect a temporary shock. Demand for oil is high; production of oil is flat. Release from teh SPR will, at best, temporarily reduce those prices, only to see them bounce up again when the SPR is depleted (or we stop discharging from it). At that point, we'll be in a worse position to respond to a genuine shock, such as a blown up suez canal or something.

I love the Democratic position on gas prices:

"What are you doing Mr. president to keep gas prices low for working americans?"

Uh, trying to bring more domestic production into play, but being stymied by Democratic objections? Thanks, JFK. I know it's not your fault--you don't own any SUVs after all.

If a portion of the electorate weren't stupid, politicians would not spend time trying to blame the opposition for high gas prices.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You seem to be saying that Max Weber made a big mistake in locating the source of the religious dogma in Luther and Calvin rather than in the subsequent beliefs of the fine German and Scot burghers. If they believed that the Elect could be identified by hard work and apparent piety, and then worked hard and were pious, doesn't that show their culture giving them an economic advantage. So the culture was influenced by the underlying economic realities, but what else is new? Would the Sioux have felt the same way about buffalo if they had lived in the Everglades?

Actually what I was saying is that the burghers wanted the people to work hard and be pious (read: don't get all drunk and break things or be too sick to work six days a week), so to get them to act accordingly, they couched it in religious terms.

The culture was manipulated to bring about an economic advantage without having to provide real-world incentives, like a living wage, etc.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I read that, and found nothing I could consider as anti-semitic.

Stoopid, yes, but not in a racist sort of way.

I tend to agree, but there are those that will look at the three named people (Wolfowitz, Perle, Krauthammer - all jews) and think it was a subtle jab.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
As long as we're both saying it's not an inherent handicap, I think we agree that the decline was gradual in relation to the rise of the West. The West was probably passing the Islamic world by about 1540 or so. But I still don't see how the military and administrative failures that led to the losses of Spain, etc. were related to any dogmatic shift, which is how I would see the religion "causing" the economic stagnation. I don't think the converse has had all that profound effect in the same regions. For example, the rise of a secular Turkish republic has probably been a good thing, but I wouldn't say Turkey is leaps-and-bounds better off under the republic than under the Ottoman Empire, economically speaking.

Something you all may want to think about is the relative value of trade versus manufacture in economies of the different religious worlds. In the middle east and in southern Europe, the Catholic heartland, capital was drawn to and tied up in trade. Why weave cloth or silk when you can trade them both? The reason is that weaving leads to innovation and that the world economy that emerged from the middle ages was one that, except for the discovery of untapped natural resources in North America, was fed heavily by innovation. As innovation led to, for example, better sailing ships and sails, trade was also altered for the benefit of the manufacturing economies.

And if you look in the late middle ages, you find that the manufacturing centers tend to be England, Flanders, North Italy, and Anatolia -- but that those most exposed to competition from trade quickly fell from the running, with additional centers, like parts of Germany, just a bit off the beaten track, overtaking them.

--G3, economic determinist

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually what I was saying is that the burghers wanted the people to work hard and be pious (read: don't get all drunk and break things or be too sick to work six days a week), so to get them to act accordingly, they couched it in religious terms.

The culture was manipulated to bring about an economic advantage without having to provide real-world incentives, like a living wage, etc.

So it's a sixteenth-century conspiracy theory? There are all sorts of religious ideas floating around at any one time, and it's something of a mystery to say when Christianity took off instead of, e.g., Mithraic cults.* As I say, surely part of it is that the ideas resonate in light of the particular economic circumstances of the time, but it doesn't undermine the proposition that once the people believed that they should act like Elect, and not Damned, this had economic consequences. Which was kinda Weber's point.

* Like my periodic references to Capricorn One (which was on AMC last Sunday -- and what a good flick, too, with some solid acting by Orenthal James Simpson, who pretends to be an astronaut), I like to work in Mithraic cults now and then, if only to keep Atticus happy.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Good thing your science and math regimen didn't addle your pretty little head with any US history.

Head on back to the FB with the other idiots, hun. You missed my point entirely.

You sure got that right about me being pretty, though.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
it's something of a mystery to say when Christianity took off instead of, e.g., Mithraic cults.

Your sources suck. All hail Mithras, the Capped One, Sacred God of Morning and Slayer of the Bull of Ahura Mazda!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Any release would be outrageous. What part of "strategic" don't the dems understand? There is nothing to suggest that prices reflect a temporary shock. Demand for oil is high; production of oil is flat. Release from teh SPR will, at best, temporarily reduce those prices, only to see them bounce up again when the SPR is depleted (or we stop discharging from it). At that point, we'll be in a worse position to respond to a genuine shock, such as a blown up suez canal or something.

I love the Democratic position on gas prices:

"What are you doing Mr. president to keep gas prices low for working americans?"

Uh, trying to bring more domestic production into play, but being stymied by Democratic objections? Thanks, JFK. I know it's not your fault--you don't own any SUVs after all.

This Democrat is hoping that the shortage means they're going to start exploring for oil in Texas again.