Politics As Usual

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Aren't you about a millenium off in timing on figuring out why Christianity took off? I mean, that's an ancient world rather than middle ages type question, and was kind of sorted out sometime before Muhammed.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
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.

If you are limiting it to that time frame, then I agree.

Originally posted by baltassoc
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.

I don't agree with that analysis.

Originally posted by baltassoc
ETA: See, Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

I do agree that the protestant version of Christianity is more accepting of capitalism than catholism.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm merely arguing Weber reversed cause and effect. This isn't an original thought. See another German philosopher, who did his best work in the reading room of the British Museum and had a tendency to fascinate the Russians and Chinese in the first half of the 20th Century.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Aren't you about a millenium off in timing on figuring out why Christianity took off? I mean, that's an ancient world rather than middle ages type question, and was kind of sorted out sometime before Muhammed.

I'm not arguing about why Xty took off. Taxwonk is arguing that Protestant denominations took off because German and Scottish burgers were manipulating the masses, and I'm suggesting that this (1) is a little far-fetched, and (2) does not really undercut Max Weber's theories about the Protestant work ethic.

Originally posted by Wonk
I'm not disagreeing. I'm merely arguing Weber reversed cause and effect. This isn't an original thought. See another German philosopher, who did his best work in the reading room of the British Museum and had a tendency to fascinate the Russians and Chinese in the first half of the 20th Century.

Why don't we split the difference and call it a dialectic? We'd make Hegel happy, and he tends to be forgotten these days. Maybe if the Russians and Chinese had been more comfortable with internal dissent.

But I'm not getting how Weber reversed cause and effect on your account. You have to go further and say it's all false consciousness, right? If so, why didn't Catholics fall for the same con?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not arguing about why Xty took off. Taxwonk is arguing that Protestant denominations took off because German and Scottish burgers were manipulating the masses, and I'm suggesting that this (1) is a little far-fetched, and (2) does not really undercut Max Weber's theories about the Protestant work ethic.

Actually, I was arguing that the "Protestant" work ethic wasn't really Protestant. It was merely an ecoomic phenomenon that happened to take root first in the Protestant nations.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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.

I'm getting the impression that you think that I think that "culture" can coexist independent of an all-pervasive "dogma". I don't.

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.

Slur? Ah, first you make the empty assertion above for a base, and then make your Hitler argument. I'm not quite clear as to how this is even remotely pertinent to what I said, but maybe the important point is, it doesn't have to be. The Hitler Option stands by itself, doesn't it?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
To continue the prior topic . . .

I've been trying to educate you people on this for a while now. There are many conservatives that have been anti-war and/or critical of Bush's handling of Iraq. Kristol is one of them. I find him to be a rational, principled guy, though his predictions are often wrong.

They refuse to open their minds.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think those of you who don't watch Fox News would like it. Yes there are conservative pundits on there, but it is clear who the pundits are. There are also liberal pundits as well - Juan Williams (NPR), Mara Liason (NPR), CC Collins (Time), Mort Kondrake (Roll Call) to name a few. Name another major news outlet with this kind of balance.

And the conservative pundits aren't all cut out of the same mold, either. They disagree with each other on some topics, too.

Fox News Watch is a good show, too. The panel is balanced with liberals like Neal Gabler and Jane Hall.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119535,00.html

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I liked your necromancer sig line better.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm getting the impression that you think that I think that "culture" can coexist independent of an all-pervasive "dogma". I don't.

I'm confused by what you mean by "culture" and "dogma." Can you explain?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
They refuse to open their minds.

Which is exactly why Gattigap turned the station to KPFA in disgust when he heard that Terri Gross was going to interview Kristol, and why I wouldn't be caught dead linking to a Kristol article, let alone reading one.

[Not Me]

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.

I agree with it. The purpose of the reserve is not to artifically lower oil prices.

From what I have read, the price increase is a demand issue. The reved up economy of China, which is fueled by US demand for Chinese produced goods, is increasing the demand. China is a new factor in the oil suppy-demand balance and the market needs to adjust on its own without attempts to manipulate price.

It is admirable of Bush to be constrained on this. He could help himself in the election if he released them.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Don't know if this has been posted:

According to the Economist, of the top ten US states in terms of average IQ, all but one voted for Gore in the last election. On the other hand, all of the bottom ten voted for Bush.


1. Connecticut (avg IQ: 113): Gore
2. Mass (111): Gore
New Jersey (111): Gore
4. New York (109): Gore
5. R.I. (107): Gore
6. Hawaii (106): Gore
7. Maryland (105): Gore
New Hampshire (105): Bush
9. Illinois (104): Gore
10. Delaware (103): Gore

40. Alabama (90): Bush
Louisiana (90): Bush
Montana (90): Bush
Oklahoma (90): Bush
S. Dakota (90): Bush
46. S. Carolina (89): Bush
Wyoming (89): Bush
48. Idaho (87): Bush
Utah (87): Bush
50. Mississippi (85): Bush

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is admirable of Bush to be constrained on this. He could help himself in the election if he released them.

Not really. I can't believe that releasing oil would have any effect on prices, and he would simply be attacked on some other equally silly ground. But I did get a chuckle out of your attempt to paint Bush's leadership on this issue as a profile in courage.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which is exactly why Gattigap turned the station to KPFA in disgust when he heard that Terri Gross was going to interview Kristol, and why I wouldn't be caught dead linking to a Kristol article, let alone reading one.

Therein lies the (or at least one) difference between me and you. I do read and listen to what liberals have to say. On occasion, I have even been persuaded by what they had to say when it made sense.

I don't pick my positions based on the Rep platform. I pick them by informing myself about the issues, which means listening to both sides. This is why I advocate positions on both sides of the political spectrum. Because I am not a blind partisan, but rather, a thinking person.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Therein lies the (or at least one) difference between me and you. I do read and listen to what liberals have to say. On occasion, I have even been persuaded by what they had to say when it made sense.

I don't pick my positions based on the Rep platform. I pick them by informing myself about the issues, which means listening to both sides. This is why I advocate positions on both sides of the political spectrum. Because I am not a blind partisan, but rather, a thinking person.

You are, once again, the Queen of the Literal.