1

Clearly economic struggles need not be the basis for anti-Semitism as Martin Luther, as one example, demonstrated.

I will say that there is some truth to what you have written: there IS an economic component to the current European xeonophobia - something that is probably brought even more to light by their dislike of (ironically) Arabic and Turkish immigrants. (Disclaimer: I have never had the opportunity to talk to a European about immigration or anti-Semitism. But based on everything I have read by Europeans or about Europe, it seems pretty dead certain this dislike, or hatred to be more explicit, exists.)

Oh, and just because al Qaeda (who is on just about everything else wrong) is right (in my opinion) about the dangers of American corporatism doesn't make that idea wrong (although it is a common logical fallacy to assume that it does). And my dislike of American corporatism (which is largely a manifestation of materialism indifferent to the plight of the individual - something I can't imagine Moses or Jesus defending) came out of a Christian faith, not a Muslim one.

I don't understand the old lark about European statism (I assume you mean economic statism) either. Exactly what economic factors (not ideological ones...) are currently foretelling the impending doom of the EU? ("Socialism is killing Europe" is becoming like William Miller's prophecy of the second coming of Christ in 1884 - well past time to put it to rest. True, the EU has some problems, but so do we. So I don't get it.)

2

Er, xenophobia. Though xeonophobia sounds interesting.

3

I think the best analysis of anti-semitism I've read is quite a while (sorry to link to another blog) is here.

4

the euros consider isreal to be threat to world peace because of their ties to the US and the US's love of cheney-style politics: ready, shoot, aim.

isreal = country
semetic = religion

5

This post itself is anti-semitic.

The idea that "Jews=capitalists" - it's breathtaking.

And not in a nice way.

But let's put a smidgen of perspective here. The reason that there was economic discontent had to do with the Christian Church, which itself forbade lending to members of their flock, and created the very resentment by putting those who made money by lending at interest in a position of being morally inferior.

Can you say "projection?"

Let me say just one other thing: any time you say "the other" is "fundamentally different" from one, where that "fundamental" difference cited is wholly arbitrary, you are basically denying in a sense the very shared humanity of that "other."

And that's why this post is anti-semitic.

And oh, yeah, what Ben Martin said. Germany's way of counting unemployment counts more people than we do, but we have similar percentages of the work force employed. Only they've got more social stability than we do.

6

Though xeonophobia sounds interesting.

Is that an irrational fear of the noble gases?

7

'Anti-Semitism is really a hatred of capitalism'

and, logically, if you hate capitalism, you must hate democracy.

jesus would have been a capitalist, probably one the top CEOs. maybe the top CEO, like Bill Gates. and wait, Bill Gates spends a lot of time and money giving to poorest heathens in the world, so maybe he IS the return of christ. but seemingly Christ has been too busy waging a holy war in the middle east to help people, so he couldn't be christ.

8

the euros consider isreal to be threat to world peace because of their ties to the US

Do the Euros consider Australia and Great Britain threats to world peace because of their ties to the US, as well? What about Japan and South Korea? Or does it only count if they're Jews and have close ties to the US? Kind of like the Boolean logic operator "AND".

9

"The resurgence of anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe is appalling and tragic. What it shouldn’t be, however, is unexpected. In 2003, as Mark Steyn notes, a survey by the European Commission found that 59 percent of Europeans regard Israel as the 'greatest menace to world peace.'"

I think we should be careful not to equate lack of support for, or even opposition to, Israel with antisemitism. One can oppose Zionism without bearing any malice toward Jews as a people. It is the aspirations of Zionists, not the Jewish people themselves, that many object to.

10

What are the aspirations of Zionists (other than not being slaughtered and driven into the sea) that so many object to?

I ask as a serious question.

11

"What are the aspirations of Zionists (other than not being slaughtered and driven into the sea) that so many object to?"

Historically, the goal of Zionists was to establish a Jewish state in the holy lands. Not all who opposed this initiative were antisemites. Having achieved their primary goal, some Zionists seek to augment it by illegally settling land captured in subsequent conflicts. Not everyone opposed to this aspiration is antisemitic.

12

Rob, the distinction between Israel and the Jews is valid and important. But the question is not whether there is a distinction, but whether Euros are making it. Joe should have made some logical connection between opposition to Israel and anti-semitism, granted. But I don't seriously doubt that anti-semitism is rife in Europe, and I wonder who does. And when you have between 50 and 80 percent of the populatiion that thinks that Israel is THE greatest threat to world peace, SOMEthing irrational is at work.

13

Today's post is filled with so many examples of non-sequiters, false premises, and cherry-picking that my mind is boggled. This could provide a teacher of logic with an excellent class project: find all the fallacies.

Rather than spend my time cursing the darkness, however, allow me to attempt to offer a little light.

Go to the 2005 Pew report on religious prejudice http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

The countries with the highest favorable feelings toward Jews:

1. Netherlands (85% favorable)
2. France (82%)
3. Canada (78%)
4. Great Britain (78%)
5. United States (77%)
6. Germany (67%)
7. Russia (63%)
8. Spain (58%)
9. Poland (54%)

Not surprisingly, Muslim nations have lower favorable views of Jews, ranging from 0% in Lebanon and Jordan to 18% in Turkey.

14

Thank you, Mumon and ex-preacher for your important and rational comments.

I can only wonder if Joe wrote this post by way of apology for coming down hard on Ann Coulter last week. What a bunch of mindless drivel (as if channeling Coulter), the only point of which seems to be disparage Europeans and the notion of a social safety net.

Using Joe's twisted logic we could make the case that American capitalism is responsible for slavery which was doing quite well up to 1860 and racial bigotry which only experienced nation-wide outrage in the 1950's. What part of the country was the home of racial bigots and the KKK? Today we call it the Bible Belt.

15

Here's another Pew poll.

Global Trade's Impact on Country, percentage responding Very Good or Good:

91 Germany
88 France
87 Great Britian
86 Canada
79 Italy
78 US

percentage responding Very Good:

37 Germany
36 Canada
32 France
32 Great Britian
21 US
19 Italy

How is it those bad old European Socialists appreciate global trade more than we Americans? Why is their Euro a lot stronger than the US dollar?

16

Just a quick comment, Andy S.; but I bet the favorable view many smaller European nations take of global trade can be correlated to their inability to produce, internally, all of the goods necessary for standard economic life and to their equation of the words "global trade" with intra-EU trade. Maybe not, but we often observe that smaller countries look favorably on trade because they do not have the internal resources to survive without it. China, the US, India, etc. are likely less encumbered by such concerns.

17

Face it, all you socialists!! Europe is in decline by almost any measure.

The EU has a combined GDP that is approximately the same as that of the US, but it has 170 million more people.

Its per capita GDP is 25 percent lower than that of the US and that gap is getting bigger.

The average US citizen is richer than the average Frenchman or German and will continue to improve. How's that for the rich getting richer?

Fourty percent of Swedish households would rank as low-income households in the U.S. That's Sweden, the Shangri-La of the left, which the the left believes the US should emulate.

The Euro may be stronger than the dollar, but that is not a particularly good indicator. A better indicator is where all the money is flowing through investment. It ain't Europe, baby. It's the US.

What's funny is that you guys have forgotten what Nazi stood for: the national SOCIALIST party. The Nazis were leftists--statists.

You lost this debate long ago; even before 1989 when the Soviet Union fell.

Ask any honest Jew. The United States is the best friend the Jews have ever had. And you know what else? It's because this country has been heavily influenced by Christians.

18

John and jd,

Back in November I got so tired of hearing talk about how great we Americans are just because of our GDP I decided to have a look at the world's largest economies using data from the Central Intelligence Agency.

Look at this.

Excerpts:

Cuba, with a per capita GDP of $2,800, has an infant mortality rate below that of the USA. Let’s put that in context. Cuba’s per capita GDP is 7% of The United States, yet its infant mortality rate is lower.

The USA has about 4 million births each year. If we improved our infant mortality rate by 50% we’d save about 8,000 babies every year — and still be beind Japan.

Even an amateur can scan the list of per capita GDP and infant mortality and see the negaitve correlation: the higher the per capita GDP the lower the infant mortality — with the outstanding exception of the United States!

It's all a matter of what is important to you: being personally wealthy in material terms or living in a society that values low infant mortality. If we Americans are so great why can't we do both, at least as good as Cuba?

19

Andy S,

While completely agreeing with you on the facts you presented, your conclusions are probably wrong.

You act as if we are in some controlled environment and that the only difference between other countries with higher gdp's and our country is that we do not value a low infant mortality rate.

There are other factors and many of them are negative aspects to our culture. Our culture is much more diverse than other countries and as a nurse I have seen people completely avoid the healthcare system, ignore the importance of seeking relief from drugs, smoking etc while pregnant (or any other time) and simply not care.

There is not one person in this country that will be or can be denied help during their pregnancy and birth. The resources are there, the education is there and its free. Mothers to be need to care enough to look and others must care enough to tell them what they are doing wrong (or would that be too intolerant for some people?)

Something else is missing, certain individual values. I'm am not quite sure what it is, but I do not that it is not a lack of education, lack of material or lack of resources.

And why is it that you trust the mortality rate the cuba states that it has? Castro is evil, he is a killer and he clearly violates international laws regarding police use and torture. Where are the demonstrations? Ah, thats right. The left can torture without hearing a peep of protest.

20

Something else is missing, certain individual values. I'm am not quite sure what it is, but I do not that it is not a lack of education, lack of material or lack of resources...And why is it that you trust the mortality rate the cuba states that it has? Castro is evil, he is a killer and he clearly violates international laws regarding police use and torture. Where are the demonstrations? Ah, thats right. The left can torture without hearing a peep of protest.

Castro's a dictator to be sure (and like Bush has violated international agreements on torture), but it's undeniable they've made health care a priority.

Why would you assume they're lying? If they were lying wouldn't they make their numbers better? And if they were really that worse, why would they be exporting their doctors to poorer countries to help in their health care systems, which even one regular commenter here has attested to?

Why, in a country where "individual values" are so highly prized such as our own, is there the degree of problems that there are?

Say what you want about countries in Europe, but they beat us on some of these measures.

21

There are other factors and many of them are negative aspects to our culture. Our culture is much more diverse than other countries and as a nurse I have seen people completely avoid the healthcare system, ignore the importance of seeking relief from drugs, smoking etc while pregnant (or any other time) and simply not care.

Another aspect of our high infant mortality is our success in treating pre-mature births. Many countries don't count 22+ week premies in their infant mortality statistics, but we do because of our success in treating them. What are the chances of a 22-week premie surviving in Cuba? Close to zero? In the US, they have a something close to a 50% survival rate.

22

and like Bush has violated international agreements on torture

If Bush had locked up John Kerry and Hillary Clinton in Camp X-ray and started wiring up their nether regions to car batteries, there might be a point of comparison, but to compare Bush's treatment of foreign terrorists to Castro's treatment of domestic political opponents is just nonsense. How many Camp X-ray detainees would trade places with one Castro's political prisoners (discounting the fact that Castro would probably throw a party for the terrorist before releasing him to commit more terror acts)?

23

ucfengr:

Maher Arar is not a terrorist.

And while you're at it, are you aware that the US released an anti-Castro terrorist who blew up a plane full of innocent people?

Really, don't even go near that...

24

Maher Arar is not a terrorist.

mumon--From the article linked:

The U.S. Justice Department reportedly has classified evidence linking Arar to al Qaeda, though department spokesman Charles Miller yesterday refused to confirm that.

The Justice Department has argued Syria promised Arar would be treated humanely, and Syria has denied he was tortured.

The article would not seem to support your assertion that it has been proven that Arar is not a terrorist. Besides, Syria denied that he was tortured, what more do you want? If you believe Castro's Cuba, why don't you believe Bashar's Syria? Am I detecting a little anti-Arab bias?

And while you're at it, are you aware that the US released an anti-Castro terrorist who blew up a plane full of innocent people?

I assume you are talking about Luis Posada. I guess I could use Michael Moore's logic and call him a "minuteman", as he describes the terrorists blowing up mosques and schools in Iraq, but I won't. As far as I can tell, Posada is still in Federal custody in Texas (as of 24 Jan 2006) and an immigration judge has denied his extradtion to Cuba or Venezuela over concerns about torture, but has not ruled out deportation to another country. I think we should extradite him to Venezuela if they guarantee they won't send him to Cuba, but I understand the reluctance to do so. It looks like he did some work for the CIA during the Cold War and he probably has a lot of info that they wouldn't want made public.

25

What you guys can't seem to understand is why many Christians tout the greatness of the United States. We don't do it because of some fanatical devotion to this country as Utopia or Shangri-La. That's liberal leftist thinking. In fact, most Christians would probably say that the United States is the worst country to have ever existed--except for all the rest. We don't think of democracy as the ultimate goal of existence; we don't think of capitalism as the perfection of economic systems. They are simply the only systems humans can be trusted with. We have moved beyond the notion that the US has problems. The question is: how do we keep liberals and crazy dictators from destroying the best circle of hell?

And please, get real. It's hardly worth commenting on Cuba, but here goes: AMERICANS DON'T HOP ON FLOATING OBJECTS AND PADDLE THEIR WAY TO CASTRO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL!!! You guys are incredible.

26

ucfengr:

The article would not seem to support your assertion that it has been proven that Arar is not a terrorist.

What a joke. Have you actually read about the background of the guy?

This story has been all over the world, for years now.

There's a reason they let him, go, and there's a reason he sued, and there's a reason that when he did sue, they didn't try to extradite him from Canada.

Maybe you're a terrorist; you haven't been proved not guilty of being one.

And Arar's not the only one. Follow the link on that link for more.

The key phrase on that article was "secret evidence." That's so Soviet Union it's chilling.

And then there's Abu Ghraib. Did you read the article in Der Spiegel about the guy with the electrodes attached to him?

Give it up; Bush is as legit a leader of freedom and human rights as a 3 dollar bill.

27

ucfengr:

By the way, Posada was a former CIA agent who may have been in contact with them in some capacity on or about the time of the terrorist incident.

Why should he not be extradited to face justice?

Well, the answer's quite obvious. If he did face justice in Venezuela or Cuba, it'd be apparent that the steps being taken to destabilize those goverments (in the case of Venezuela, a legitimately elected government, though Chavez ain't a complete angel for sure).

28

jd:

The US has its good points and it's bad points, like anywhere else.

Bush and his cronies aren't among the good points.

The Bill of Rights is.

AMERICANS DON'T HOP ON FLOATING OBJECTS AND PADDLE THEIR WAY TO CASTRO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL!!!

Have you ever stayed in Miami Beach at a really nice hotel?

If tourists could go to Havanna, they'd abandon Miami in droves, cash would pour into Cuba, and you'd see a reversal of things. Why? Because Miami's way overpriced.

All the talk of overthrowing Castro is kind of amusing; if such a thing happened, the Miami area would be hit pretty hard; at this point the Cuban exile community largely needs Castro and a Cuban embargo as much as Castro needs the US to rail against to garner support for his regime, and blaming his regime's shortcomings on the US.

I know, that's cynical, but it's so true.

29

Andy S

Excerpts:

Cuba, with a per capita GDP of $2,800, has an infant mortality rate below that of the USA. Let’s put that in context. Cuba’s per capita GDP is 7% of The United States, yet its infant mortality rate is lower.

The USA has about 4 million births each year. If we improved our infant mortality rate by 50% we’d save about 8,000 babies every year — and still be beind Japan.

Even an amateur can scan the list of per capita GDP and infant mortality and see the negaitve correlation: the higher the per capita GDP the lower the infant mortality — with the outstanding exception of the United States!

It's all a matter of what is important to you: being personally wealthy in material terms or living in a society that values low infant mortality. If we Americans are so great why can't we do both, at least as good as Cuba?

This is such a perfect example of taking things out of context that it is almost unworthy of comment. What are your traveling plans? When do you propose to move to the socialist haven?

Clearly you know these statistics do not tell the whole story (ie Another aspect of our high infant mortality is our success in treating pre-mature births. Many countries don't count 22+ week premies in their infant mortality statistics, but we do because of our success in treating them. What are the chances of a 22-week premie surviving in Cuba? Close to zero? In the US, they have a something close to a 50% survival rate.)yet you attempt to make a gotcha statement to further what? Your obvious contempt for your own country?

Let me guess...you grew up in an above average middle class family attented university at your parents expense etc etc etc. Your comments expose a mindset oblivious to the true value of things and a sloppy style of thinking which amounts to nothing more than sophistry.

I am also somewhat certain you are not in the habit of quoting the CIA in defense of your arguements, for example tell us your opinion on the CIA estimates re the Iraqi WMD program.

30

What a joke. Have you actually read about the background of the guy?

No, I read and commented on the article you cited. I don't have the time or inclination to do your work for you. If you have better information, feel free to provide it.

This story has been all over the world, for years now.

And yet I've never heard of it.

There's a reason they let him, go, and there's a reason he sued, and there's a reason that when he did sue, they didn't try to extradite him from Canada.

I am sure there is, but we may disagree on what the reason is. I am sure there is a reason that the court threw his case out too. We would probably disagree on that, too.

And Arar's not the only one. Follow the link on that link for more.

A link to your blog with a link to a movie review that describes the movie reviewed as "a ferocious, partisan, and moving account of how three young men from Tipton, in the Midlands, ended up in the world's most notorious prison." I'm sure some would consider it a reliable source, much like some consider Oliver Stone's "JFK" a reliable source on the assassination, or Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" a reliable source on the state of pre-war Iraq, but I'm probably not one of them.

The key phrase on that article was "secret evidence." That's so Soviet Union it's chilling.

Or Cuba, or the "Scooter" Libby trial.

And then there's Abu Ghraib. Did you read the article in Der Spiegel about the guy with the electrodes attached to him?

I am sure that guy would have no reason to lie.

Why should he (Posada) not be extradited to face justice?

Did you even read my post? I said I thought we should extradite him to Venezuela.

If tourists could go to Havanna, they'd abandon Miami in droves

I don't see the connection here. On the one side you have people braving shark-infested waters and armed patrol boats to jump on home-made rafts for the slim chance to escape Cuba, on the other you have tourists flying first class on Air Canada to enjoy the beaches and underage prostitutes and then flying home. Even if your are right, what's the point of comparison?

We've probably hi-jacked this thread enough

31

Scott,

I quoted two sets of stats above: one from Cuba and one from Japan. Like jd and ucfengr you chose to comment on Cuba. How about Japan, a country that can hardly be labeled socialist?

Or you could follow the link that I provided: The US is tenth in the world (among the 19 largest economies) in infant mortality. All the large nations of Europe are ahead of us (i.e. lower infant mortality): Germany, France, Spain, UK, and Spain (even Spain!). Japan and Taiwan have lower rates as well.

You say,

Let me guess...you grew up in an above average middle class family attented university at your parents expense etc etc etc. Your comments expose a mindset oblivious to the true value of things and a sloppy style of thinking which amounts to nothing more than sophistry.

Nothing could be further from the reality: I grew up in a small, rural town (pop. about 2500), where both my parents were active in our Protestant church which I attended religiously. We may have been middle class but certainly not above average. (My folks grew up quite poor during the depression and both worked.) I worked my way through college, part of the time working full-time and going to school part-time, part of the time the other way around. I got my degree summa cum laude (from a small state university) when I was 30 years old and won a full scholarship to go to grad school during which I worked part-time to meet expenses. Later in my professional carreer I joined a start-up, led the creation of a new technology, and ended up making a whole lot of money and creating many new, good jobs.

I have every reason to be a selfish, rightwing conservative, advocating tax cuts for the rich and an end to welfare programs, except for one thing: I was taught, by my parents and my church, that it's a good thing to help people who are less fortunate, to not be selfish. I also realize that I was lucky to be born with some innate intellectual ability, to have run into some good teachers along the way, and to have been in the right place at the right time when someone needed a technical leader in a field that also was just becoming a hot economic property.

There are a lot of policitally moderate and leftwing people like me. However, if you look at the CEO's of major corporations (the drivers of the conservative movement) you'll find nearly all of them come from the economic upper class. I've never understood why people who aren't rich are conservative and can only think it is a lack of a good education.

32

Will take up 2 issues: 1) GDP vs. greatness and other parameters, i.e. infant mortality rate. 2) connection between statism and anti-semitism.

On GDP . . .

It is certainly true that by GDP alone, the US is greater than the eurobloc. And the issue of infant mortality doesn't solve the debate. But the fact that income distribution in europe is more closely clusterd about the median (and mean in this case) has real implications for what standards of living are like. This occurs for 2 reasons. First, regardless of what you may like to believe, EU countries have capitalist econonomies (perhaps more regulated/planned, but free markets none-the-less). Free market economies respond to demand. In eurozone, where incomes are clustered toward the middle, the economy responds by producing goods which people can buy. In the United States income distribution is skewed in such a manner that it produces a smaller proportion of population with relatively higher income. The free market responds by producing goods people can buy (that's how economy works). And because of the skew in income, the proportion of goods is also distributred in a less equal way. The thing is that certain measures, infant mortality for example, aren't improved by a comparatively wealthy ruling class. Rather, most population-based end-points are improved by income equality. So, in addition to infant mortality, there are several other population-based end-points along which europe out-performs the US. These include: life expectancy at birth, days of hospitalization, employment, % population with health insurance, % pop in poverty, literacy rate, and others (who data, oecd data, worldbank data, undp data). It should be noted as well, that cuba also out-perfoms the US among many population-based measures. The simplified version of this story is: America is certainly home to more Leer-Jets, but it's citizens won't live as long as average europeans and will be sicker. Provided this represents a rational choice Americans make for themselves at the polls, I think it's fine. Gambling is legal, and Christians seem to like to gamble at the polls, each hoping to win the economic lottery, e.g. to get their chance at the Leer-Jet. European Godlessness here manifests itself as a society more risk averse, and much less willing to gamble on matters socio-economic. They prefer, apparently to be sure people will be fed, feel safe, and live long in comfort--also a rational choice.

On Statism . . .

As the argument goes, states which serve the interests of the governed will invariable serve the interests of the majority who get to make most of the rules. This is particularly true in Europe where thousands of years had produced comparatively ethnically "clean" states full of people who share acommon understanding of history, religion, language, etc. It really should come as no surprise that these states had an easier go of social welfare. Fact is, people feel more identity with same, and are probably more likely to construct policies which are kind to their "race", if you believe in that construct.

The issue about Israel being the "biggest threat" to world peace, I agree is not a questino of anti-semitism. But Arab immigration in Europe probably does inform european ideation on the matter. Europe's immigration debate clusters around only accepting as many immigrants as can be integrated into it's social welfare matrix. I doubt very much xenophobia is any more or less deeply embedded than here, or anywhere else for that matter. What is clear is that Europe will not accept immigrants it cannot care for according to it's ideas about gambling at the polls. Americans are much more comfortable with larger scale immigration (50,000 free green cards per year, www.dvlottery.state.gov) because they don't mind seeing abject poverty, and they're pretty comfortable letting people live in poverty without health insurance if it means they're get the grass cut in Los Angeles on the cheap. Europeans don't want more immigrants than the social state can support, in the event of underemployment, etc.

In the final analysis, there probably is no moral blame that can be cast on either of these systems in this regards. They both respond to rational ideas about how society should be constructed. And they both produce rather ordered and fairly similar looking societies. True, there's lots more ugly poverty in the States. But from the perspective of world view, these two bloc of states (EU and US) look much more like each other than they do like anything else in the world. I grew up in Germany, and France and the States and trust me, when you can speak these languages, suddenly these societies don't seem all that different. And this of course, is reflected in the fact that both blocs do most of their trading with each other (and in about the same amount 24-26% of total international trade www.eu.int).

It doesn't really matter that the euro is the stronger currency. Nor that the total exports of Europe are greater, nor that the majority of investments are in Europe). And while i won't push the point, if you want to look at GDP per capita between the western European countries (France, Germany, UK, etc) you'll find they look alot like the numbers for the states (www.worldbank.org). It isn't until you start including the bloc of 25 that the US really looks better.

No on can win the debate that one of these countries is obviously in decline, and for the moment, neither could survive without it's trade partner. Time will tell.

c

33

Or you could follow the link that I provided: The US is tenth in the world (among the 19 largest economies) in infant mortality. All the large nations of Europe are ahead of us (i.e. lower infant mortality): Germany, France, Spain, UK, and Spain (even Spain!). Japan and Taiwan have lower rates as well.

Since all countries don't count live births in the same way, this statistic is pretty meaningless. For example, the US counts live births as recommended by the WHO whichs counts a live birth as birth in which the infant shows any independent signs of life, i.e. breathing, heartbeat, or muscle movement. Japan only counts an infant born breathing as a live birth. When you are talking about differences of 0.3% in infant mortality rate (6 per thousand vs. 3 per thousand), minor differences in counting can show seemingly big differences.

I have every reason to be a selfish, rightwing conservative, advocating tax cuts for the rich and an end to welfare programs, except for one thing: I was taught, by my parents and my church, that it's a good thing to help people who are less fortunate, to not be selfish.

I think we can all agree that it is a good thing to help people and not be selfish, but it is very easy to "not be selfish" with other people's money. You have every right to be generous with the fruit of your labor, but what right do you have to be generous with mine.

34

What CT said, for the most part.

(I'm less certain about the causes of European objections to immigration, but your argument is certainly plausible. Which makes me wonder if it is possible to both increase the robustness of social welfare guarantees while not drastically limiting immigration. I certainly hope it is. We would not be the same here without strong immigration.)

35

I have every reason to be a selfish, rightwing conservative, advocating tax cuts for the rich and an end to welfare programs, except for one thing: I was taught, by my parents and my church, that it's a good thing to help people who are less fortunate, to not be selfish.

When did it become some great, noble act of sacrifice to give somebody else's money away? By this standard, Ken Lay was probably more noble and made greater sacrifices than anybody who posts here. I bet those bank robbers in Great Britain will planning on being very generous with their nobly gotten gains. We can argue about how high or low taxes should be, but please, can we dispense with this "holier than thou" attitude that you are making some huge sacrifice by offering up another workman's wages on your altar.

36

Ben Martin writes: ""...Al Qaeda is right (in my opinion) about the dangers of American corporatism ... And my dislike of American corporatism (which is largely a manifestation of materialism indifferent to the plight of the individual - something I can't imagine Moses or Jesus defending) came out of a Christian faith, not a Muslim one.

I don't understand the old lark about European statism (I assume you mean economic statism) either. Exactly what economic factors (not ideological ones...) are currently foretelling the impending doom of the EU?""

Ben, you expose your prejudice against capitalism [which Jesus *supports* in his parables] when you switch from 'the dangers of' corporatism to 'my dislike of' it. Big difference.
It is better to argue that 'corporatism' is a form of unfair, careless monopoly, which is a feature of socialism far more than it is of historic capitalism in the West.

Al Qaeda condemns ALL enterprise that they don't control [eg the Saudis], but just like communists, they have no alternative economics -bin Laden in fact comes from a successful capitalist family!

You are off the pace in not knowing about 'European statism' too. The old EEC has been transforming into a centralised super-state for years in Brussells and Strasbourg, and now has its own legal rights charter which it is trying to impose on sovereign states, with its own less-than-democratic bureaucracies. Not all states were given a vote on its Constitution [imagine that!] It even has a foreign ministry!

The EU is powerfully resistant to free trade, to the extent of keeping African farmers out of its markets. It has pockets of protectionism in high places that even the UK finds backward and socialist.

It's Joe who is across this brief, not you.

37

ucfengr,

Have a look at this:

Top 5% [of wage earners] pay 53.25% of all income taxes... The top 50% pay 96.03%... The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! ... The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes.

Please check the source of these 2003 figures so you can be sure I'm throwing leftwing propoganda at you.

My question is are you in that 5% who pay most of the federal income tax? If you are, what's your beef? Do you need to be richer?

Are you in the bottom 50% who pay little? If so, why are you complaining about about giving a little to support the general welfare of our country? There is hardly anything in our lives that isn't directly or indirectly supported by taxes: roads, schools, medicine, police, courts, millitary, etc.

You write,

I think we can all agree that it is a good thing to help people and not be selfish, but it is very easy to "not be selfish" with other people's money. You have every right to be generous with the fruit of your labor, but what right do you have to be generous with mine. ...can we dispense with this "holier than thou" attitude that you are making some huge sacrifice by offering up another workman's wages on your altar.

Where did I claim to be making any kind of "huge sacrifice?

How am I in anyway in control of your decisions about where your money goes? As I recall a 1913 constitutional amendment that makes it a proper government function. Perhaps I should take a rightwing approach and question your patriotism. Don't you support the troops in Iraq? Our federal tax dollars is what keeps them there. One of the principles of the American Revolution was "taxation without representation." You have representation now (if you are a citizen), so pay your taxes without whining.

38

My question is are you in that 5% who pay most of the federal income tax? If you are, what's your beef? Do you need to be richer?

The top 5% starts somewhere around $100k/year. In most states in the Northeast (my stomping ground), that puts you far from being rich. In DC or New York, $100k/yr might put you in the upper middle class, but it doesn't go that far. You aren't going to be flying your private jet to go skiing in Vale on $100k/yr or even $300-500k/yr. But this is really irrelevent to the question of what right do you have to be "not selfish" with my money?

As I recall a 1913 constitutional amendment that makes it a proper government function.

The 16th amendment authorizes Congress to levy a tax to pay for Constitutionally authorized government functions. Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to appropriate money for the relief of individual suffering? As James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." If you are going to say the "general welfare" clause, he is what Madison had to say about that: With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Where did I claim to be making any kind of "huge sacrifice?

Here is the quote I was referring to: "I have every reason to be a selfish, rightwing conservative, advocating tax cuts for the rich and an end to welfare programs, except for one thing: I was taught, by my parents and my church, that it's a good thing to help people who are less fortunate, to not be selfish."

Obviously not being selfish implies a sacrifice that you apprently take great pride in.

39

Average After-Tax Income (2000 $) of the top 5% in 2000: $299,400. That's six years ago and it's after tax income. Source: Congressional Budget Office. 2003. Effective Federal Tax Rates, 1997-2000. August. Appendix B.

Lower limit on top 5% was $157,000 in 2004 in 2004 dollars. (US Census Bureau)

But let's take your figure. $100,000 is a nice round number — and to the 9 out of 10 who make less it's something to dream about. I suggest that if you find it doesn't "go that far" you have to examine your values. What do you say to the teacher down the street making 40K or the manager of a fastfood joint pulling down 20K?

Obviously not being selfish implies a sacrifice that you apprently take great pride in.

Why do you say that? When I have more than I need there's no sacrifice whatsoever in offering some of that to someone who has less. In fact, it's self-serving in a (good) way. My quality of life is enhanced when the people around me are not straining too hard to, for example, find a doctor when they have no health insurance or put decent food on the table or spend time with their children. Then they can do a better job of childraising and have a better chance to contribute meaningfully to society.

William Gates, Sr., (Bill's rich lawyer father) has said he never minded paying taxes because he knew that the wealth he generated was dependent on the wealth generated by the people who went before him. That the government builds roads, schools, funds medical research, etc. and those things benefit me is something I quite appreciate. Rather than pride, it's a sense of fairness that I feel in paying taxes. "No man is an island."

40

I reiterate my argument that American's choose this income distribution plan.

Arguments about whether or not the existence of wealth and poverty is just, are absurd. Anyone can see that factors other than "hard work" figure strongly into whether or not one is "blessed" with great wealth.

The fact is, plenty of poor people still vote conservatively. I suspect this means they prefer a system which gives some people the benefit of great wealth--EVEN if they are not among the "blessed".

Several others who may be luckier in money certainly feel strongly that they'd rather see a more equitable society.

The fact is, people must vote for a system that distributes incomes in a manner they find appealing. And they do. And not everyone can win that debate.

For example, I'm -- i guess -- among the economically lucky ones. My boyfriend and are are both doctors, we have no kids, AND no LeerJet but clearly, we don't struggle. That being said, we're super liberal and we'd vote for more equality and more taxes any day.

As you may have noticed, not enough people vote with us, most of them much much poorer than us.

My point here is that reasonable people disagree srrongly on this matter, and it may simply represnet a difference of opinion which carries no moral character. Yes, I find it shocking that others with means should propogate a system in which many are excluded and impoverished. But I suspect there are people of principle out there who find no problem with a rather unfair, unjust and chaotic sort of income distribution.

And, the better argument, is that social welfare programs (while i support them wholeheartedly) do in fact produce abuses and inefficiencies in the ecnomy, which are very problematic. So I accept that other reasonable people might object.

Still, the argument that Europe is collapsing under a wave of anti-semitism because of it's egalitarian liberal state structres is quite far fetched.

There is certainly no data to suggest living standards are falling ANYWHERE in eurozone. Indeed, the impact of the EU on the poorer countries has been profoundly positive.

And where finances have been problematic the result has been to cut social spending and privatize industries, which renders Europe more American, rather than more dead.

The economic fact is that Europe's equality poicies are expensive, and when pushed to financial limits, Europe parts with equality--as little as possible sure. But reforms do occur when economically required (Germany, UK for sure, data less clear for France).

Americans voters don't usually choose prioritization of social equality. This state functions on the premise that private wealthy concentrations fuel an economy that raises living standards for all. Europe's people have voted to concentrate wealth in central coffers for a broader array of market goods (health care, university education, and until recently telecom, transportation, etc).

There is no clear evidence that either of these structures necessitates state failure. And there is no evidence that one of these organizing principles is the proximiate cause of an anti-semitic new wave which will plunge the EU into chaos.

Many of the posts we've seen here are rhetorical dribble pre-supposing the rightness or wrongness of one or the other of these systems and then post-facto trying to link that pre-supposition to an imagined bad outcome, in this case state-collapse.

Gimme a break!

41

Barry and EU Opposed to Free-Trade??

I can't help but wonder if you know anything about the structure of the EU's trade policy with respect to African farmers.

It's true that Free Trade Zones exist for the purpose of furthering the interests of Europe. So, I could initially just dismiss this ridiculous argument directly out of hand.

But since you've raised the issue of African farmers I must pummel you further.

There is an office within the eurobodypolitic called ECHO (european office for coordination of humanitarian activities). It functions something like USAID (united states agency for international development).

Among the many things EU policy does for African farmers is speciically giving them access to it's internal markets. ECHO designates the poorest countries in the world (among them more than a dozen where African farmers are located) as places with high priority development needs.

One of the key interventions made in this countries is that exports to the EU will be duty free, in an effort to assist development of economies in poor countries.

You assertion that the EU is fiercely against free trade is frankly, flatly ludicrous. Your follow up comment specifying African farmers as specifically punished would be comical if you had any of the facts right.

The EU accepts imports from the poorest countries, and in addition to this funds 56% of the worlds development aid. Another 20% comes from the US, 14% comes from Japan, other countries make up the difference.

Europe is both more kind in terms of trade, and more generous in terms of aid (both in terms of total cash 30 billion USD per year and in term of % GNP 0.34 is the EU average, which is well above that of the states).

Again my point is not that this system is better by necessity but is certainly more egalitarian and according to me at least, more socially just.

And I reiterate the point that people on this particular post are making exceptionally poor arguments today.

All of the above can be found at www.eu.int

42

Hey, Barrie. Let me clarify, if you will, I think that will help.

You're right I am predjudiced against capitalism - I wasn't trying to hide that. At the same time, I am not going to force it on Americans. That doesn't mean though that I can't tell them that they should at least consider other systems, or even that I can't advocate for stronger social welfare systems (which are NOT socialist, necessarily). BUT I also think that there is nothing wrong with socialism. If the Europeans (again, not limiting Europeans to the EU) want to practice it, I don't think we should tell them it's sinful because it isn't.

As to socialism being sinful - again, it isn't. Ancient Israel, while not socialist, certainly was not strictly capitalist either (Jubilee years anyone? - that's wealth redistribution!). And the early church clearly practiced their own form of communalism - even if they didn't not necessarily expect to convince the culture at large to practice it (which clearly they did not). I can't imagine why you think the parables dictate capitalism - they clearly do not. They use it descriptively, but it would be a clear stretch to dictate that people should practice capitalism (in a very primitive sense, no less) because Jesus has his characters practicing capitalism. That isn't the point of the parables. If you have some good examples, go ahead and share, but I know I have read them before, and what I said still holds - they may describe it, but they're parables, and so just describing it is not prescribing it. It saddens me that the church has abused the Bible to the point of saying that socialism is somehow sinful (even though as I said, the church practiced it!) when that isn't what it says. Everything else I said here is just my opinion, but my belief that God does not prescribe capitalism (which is different than saying he forbids it) is based on careful, and I think, Spirit-lead, reading and pondering of Scripture.

You are right to notice though that I directly addressed corporatism. That's a much greater concern to me than American capitalism. Large economic entities who are in many ways above the law - the Old Testament is filled with condemnations of individuals who acted like that, I don't know that corporations who act that way should be condemned any less.

I also did not mean to say one way or the other that Europe was or was not statist. I don't know if I would call any European nations statist, but they certainly have lots of statist properties, so in fact I would be inclined to agree with you. My point of dispute was that that had not led to a clear economic downfall. Even if their is some evidence of slippage, Europe is still competetive. And I was only referring to economics at that - I don't think European nations generally give its citizens enough freedom - I agree with you there. (Though I don't think that is necessarily tied to the economics; Europe was able to practice socialism BECAUSE it was statist in some ways, not the other way around, I would think.)

And I don't think you should read too much into my agreement with al Qaeda. It CERTAINLY doesn't go very far at all. But hypocrites often make the best judges, in my experience, so their complaints need not be invalid even if they don't have anything better to offer (and they don't!).

Sorry about the length...

43

Rob said:
One can oppose Zionism without bearing any malice toward Jews as a people. It is the aspirations of Zionists, not the Jewish people themselves, that many object to.

This statement is a very dangerous half truth. If you define Zionism correctly as 'the desire for self-determination of the Jewish people worldwide', this argument falls flat, and even is sinister in its implications.
Are you prepared to say, Rob, that ONLY the Jewish people are not entitled to their own homeland?
The United Nations, no less, granted them this land, and they have been defending their existence constantly in it ever since, unlike almost any other nation. Is this 'Zionism' to you? They only hold land defensively because they are given no peace after wars by their implacable enemies.
Even many of the settlements are not 'stealing', but attempts to maintain a small presence in their *most sacred places* - like Hebron - where Jews have *always* lived..
Israel has always been home to many, many Arabs and others too, but many 1000s of Jews were expelled from Arab lands only because of their race and religion.. [not to speak of the unspeakable in Europe.]

Your argument would [does!] fit comfortably in the mouth of any antisemite today. 'Oh, Jews are OK as a people, but not in Israel!'

44

#41 CT says: "Your assertion that the EU is fiercely against free trade is frankly, flatly ludicrous."

I wonder, CT, if you understand the enormous subsidies in the whole EU budget [up to half of it!] given to their very inefficient farmers. I am Australian and I know what efficient farming is, so I say they have no intention of installing 'free trade' there, and it holds them all back. Prove me wrong.
The UK gets some different treatment because it HAS reformed its farming. Agrarian socialism is still socialism -it's in the US too.

Thanks, Ben, for your endorsement of socialism [undefined]. Somehow, I think you missed the 20th century entirely. I was born in 1944.
If you hate corporatism, start hating socialism, which has it even more and doesn't pass useful antitrust laws either..

I find the idea that Jesus just used capitalist 'examples' without endorsing it specious. Jesus made moral *virtues* out of plain capitalist behaviour! He knew human nature and valued the individual, not the corporate elites [oligarchs].

Besides, his family were probably successful small builders, from the latest archaeology!

45

Barrie, you're welcome :) I will admit to youth here, but I caught enough of the 20th century (and I've read a little bit of history too, after all) to have some idea of what's going on, though not having seen as much of it the first time around, maybe I missed something. I'm not some sort of Leninist, though, if that's what you're getting at.

I am afraid I can't agree with your interpretation of the parables. They're parables, not instruction sets. They use elements familiar to the listeners to teach spritirual truths, not economic ones. Although spiritual truths may occasionally affect (at least micro-) economics, such as say, dictating that we (as individuals) give money to the poor, I can't think of any parable that dictates anything about money. And you completely ignored the other passages I mentioned, which, while not arguments for socialism, certainly ought to make anyone think twice before claiming capitalism as we understand it today is dictated by Scripture. (I suspect the virtue you are concerned with is industriousness - but (1) no where that I recall is that a command, though even if it is, (2) how is that automatically dead in a socialist system? Rechanneled perhaps, but hardly irrelevant. Anyway, that still has nothing to do with the fact that collectivism was good enough for the apostolic church...)

Frankly, I don't care that much if some country practices capitalism, socialism, or whatever (though there can be abusive socialist systems and abusive capitalist systems, though I don't believe either need be abusive), as long as you make sure that justice (which can admittedly be defined with varying degrees of breadth) is available to the vulnerable (which most certainly includes the poor), that people are paid a living wage for their work, and that those in need of help aren't abandoned - all Scriptural principles to some degree. I don't know how it is in Australia, but those things happen all the time here (and in other countries at the behest of American companies). And if any socialist country did the same thing (and in some, like China, clearly that happens), then they would be wrong too. But frankly, a lot of European countries seem, admittedly, I am not yet expert in the subject, to have less of a problem with these things. But, whatever. The moral principles need to hold, regardless of what economic system you use to get there.

I know you directed this part of your remark at CT, but I'll definitely agree with you on agricultural subsidies, since they are being used at least in the US, to allow agricultural dumping on other countries where farmers actually need the money to live, unlike here.

46

But let's take your figure. $100,000 is a nice round number — and to the 9 out of 10 who make less it's something to dream about. I suggest that if you find it doesn't "go that far" you have to examine your values. What do you say to the teacher down the street making 40K or the manager of a fastfood joint pulling down 20K?

The problem is that the statistics you are trying to use to paint a picture don't support your conclusions. Like the infant mortality statistics, the difference between Japan and the US is 0.3% (roughly 6 per 1000 vs. 3 per 1000). This is a very small number and is easily explained by differences in how the particular countries count infant deaths. When you are talking about very small numbers, slight differences in methodology can show big statistical differences. Your use of income distribution is similiarly problematic. If you look at the demographics of the upper 5% of income earners you will find that they typically live in a fairly narrow band along I-95 running from Washington to Boston or in certain West Coast cities like LA, San Francisco, and Seattle. You will also find that they are typically in the 50+ age demographic. So what you find is that the typical top 5-percenter lives in areas that can be characterized as high-cost of living locations and is in the prime earning years. You will also find that many of them are 2+ earner families. To use an actual example, if I were to move my $350k home to within 30 miles of DC, it would become a $800k home, if I moved it to LA it would easily top $1M. If I went the other way and moved my house to Belton, TX, it would be a $140K house, if I moved it to Vicksburg, MI it would probably drop below $100k. What this indicates is that depending on location, families with significantly different household income can live materially similiar lives.

Why do you say that?

Well, because it's obvious.

When I have more than I need there's no sacrifice whatsoever in offering some of that to someone who has less.

And that's just swell, but the problem is when you offer somebody else's money as if it were your own. Charitable giving is a wonderful virtue that I heartily support, but what is wonderful about forcing someone else to give to charity. It reminds me the parable of salt losing it's saltiness. Giving is salt, forcing someone to give is salt without saltiness.

William Gates, Sr., (Bill's rich lawyer father) has said he never minded paying taxes

I have no problem paying taxes for Constitutionally authorized functions of government. Where in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to appropriate funds to spend on "objects of benevolence"? We are not talking about supporting the military or maintaining or the highways, we are talking about forcibly taking money from one person to give to another person in most cases to subsidize the bad decisions they made in life.

47

"Your argument would [does!] fit comfortably in the mouth of any antisemite today. 'Oh, Jews are OK as a people, but not in Israel!'"

Well, Barrie, some Christian opinions fit easily in the mouths of homophobes and misogynists. Some conservative opinions fit easily in the mouths of bigots. It does not follow that all Christians are homophobes and misogynists or that all conservatives are bigots. My point is that Israel, like any other political entity, should be subject to criticism.

"Are you prepared to say, Rob, that ONLY the Jewish people are not entitled to their own homeland?"

Of course not. Nor would I say that of any other ethnic group. But are they entitled to another people's homeland?

I am a realistic person. The state of Israel is a fait accompli. I think its right to exist should be acknowledged by all. But I think given the arguable injustice of the nation's inception, Israel should make every effort to accomodate the concerns of displaced persons, such as dismantling the settlements outside of Israel proper and recognition of a palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. I think the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their homes is unworkable, however.

48

But I think given the arguable injustice of the nation's inception, Israel should make every effort to accomodate the concerns of displaced persons, such as dismantling the settlements outside of Israel proper and recognition of a palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

I imagine you have as much chance of Israel surrendering Jerusalem to a Palestinian state as you do of a "right of return." For a Jew, there really is no Israel without Jerusalem. I am skeptical that even a particition, ala East and West Berlin could work.

49

CT,

While I generally share your point of view and appreciate your way with words, I find the morally neutral argument troubling.

My point here is that reasonable people disagree strongly on this matter, and it may simply represent a difference of opinion which carries no moral character. Yes, I find it shocking that others with means should propogate a system in which many are excluded and impoverished. But I suspect there are people of principle out there who find no problem with a rather unfair, unjust and chaotic sort of income distribution.

I can't see how anyone "of principle" can have no problem with the unfair and unjust unless their principles are completely self-centered and they have no sense of compassion which I believe are attributes of a psychopath and/or sociopath.

And, the better argument, is that social welfare programs (while i support them wholeheartedly) do in fact produce abuses and inefficiencies in the ecnomy, which are very problematic. So I accept that other reasonable people might object.

Certainly reasonable people object to abuses and inefficiencies, but I it is not reasonable (or sane IMO) to think that there should be no government supported social welfare. Compassionate conservatism is at best an oxymoron, at worst underhanded, self-serving, propoganda.

40 million is the most recent figure I've seen on the number of Americans without health insurance. Where do we find a single conservate or even moderate Republican with any idea (or even concern) to change that? That is, to put it as kindly as possible, a clear moral lapse.

The motivating ideas of conservatism in the USA are that poverty is the result of a lack of "family values," that the poor have choosen to be poor by their lack of a work ethic, and that the children of the poor are just unlucky, certainly not the responsibility of the government. A libertarian like ucfengr thinks he is being robbed if any of his taxes are used to help the poor. Positions like these show both a lack of morality and poor education.

The issue is all about moral character.

50

"I am skeptical that even a particition, ala East and West Berlin could work."

The partition is what I mean; I don't expect Israel to give up the entire city to Palestine. Maybe a partition could work, and maybe it wouldn't. I think the city already has a partition of sorts.

51

Andy S,

I happen to aree with you on matters aforementioned. By constructing the debate as a difference of opinion among reasonable peope I try to temper my own position.

My view is that 40 million uninsured folks (I'm a doctor after all) is problematic--in myriad ways.

But conservatives will argue that emergency departments exist and are bound by law to see anyone who appears at the door (EMTALA is the name of the law).

Conservatives will argue Bush is increasing the number of community health centers (also see uninsured folks for whatever they can pay).

Conservatives will argue that a large bureaucratic ministry of health along the european model is inefficient and heinous, and fights free market principles.

My argument merely becomes that respecting reasoned thoughtful votes on how to solve the problems of society is a good place to start. This is especially true when the minority vote in-line with the majority.

As for ecfengr, his view is not substantially libertarian in at least one regard. The philosophy of libertarianism rests on initial just distribution. That is, in the original state, everything had to be justly distributed. On that basis, libertarian rules about just acquisition of goods and just transfer do work the way he says. However, given the persistence of unjust transfers over time, true libertarians don't make the arguments he makes. True libertarians can function in a theoretical frame of how things ought to work. But this is not a theoretical frame which functions in the present world, where current distribution of economic resources is widely known to be unjust.

People who apply concepts of Libertarian economy/social policy to modern america are not libertarians. Rather, they are idiots, who could stand to read up a bit on the foundations of concept. I'd start him on Mill. It's clear, it's short and it covers all basics.

regards,

c

52

#47 Rob, you simply have been brainwashed into believing that Jews 'took over the Palestinian homeland', and/or that Jews have not lived in the same area together for centuries [like the beleaguered PA Christians too!]..
Do you realise that both your claims are unhistorical Arab propaganda? Please get a handle on the true history of Israel's formation and its struggles since.

Nor do you acknowledge that while some Arabs lost their homes in their *war to destroy fledgling Israel* [from the day after it was declared, no less!] many 1000s of Jews were expelled from Arab lands without compensation -helping create the Israel we know! [No-one even mentions this today!]
War for conquest has its consequences if you lose. Germany lost land to Poland, etc, etc. Hamas now wants 'land but no peace.'

The Arabs are not interested in making peace even after 58 years of trying to destroy Israel! Why? The fault lies with the *continuous* Arab [and now Islamist] warmongering, and keeping their poorest people cynically as 'refugees' for 50 years. just as pawns.
Despite everything, Israel is the only democracy in the area, yet you condemn its survival policies! The PA is filled only with bloodthirsty hate media, so it elected a bloodthirsty leadership! Surprised? I'm not.

Israel HAS given up its largest war gains - the Sinai to Egypt, for instance, and concessions to Jordan, *in return for peace*. They DID offer a joint Jerusalem to Arafat in 2000, but he spurned peace in favour of using homicidal youths.
Please get your facts right, and your moral compass re-tuned. Watch decent media.

The fact today is that to be 'anti-Zionist' is to be anti the State of Israel, since that's what the term has always meant, and means to all Israel's enemies.
I will continue this debate elsewhere if you wish, as it's vital for Christians to judge these matters properly in the present climate.

53

The motivating ideas of conservatism in the USA are that poverty is the result of a lack of "family values," that the poor have choosen to be poor by their lack of a work ethic

When we talk about the "chronically poor" we find that there are some pathologies that are common to them. Among these are a lack of a high school education, in many cases a lack of even basic literacy, drug or alcohol abuse, and teenage parenthood. If you have chosen not to finish high school, to abuse drugs and/or alcohol, and have children as a teenager, you have pretty much made the decision to be poor. Is this really arguable?

and that the children of the poor are just unlucky, certainly not the responsibility of the government.

We can certainly agree that they are unlucky, but what in the Constitution make these children the responsibility of the government? Just for the sake of arguement, let's assume that these unlucky children are the responsibility of government, what is the best way to execute that responsibility? Is it to give the parents a subsistence level income and leave the children to continue to be victimized by the parent's pathologies? I don't think so.

A libertarian like ucfengr thinks he is being robbed if any of his taxes are used to help the poor.

I do support the use of taxes the maintain a strong military, provide police/fire protection, and maintain the highways, among other things. Theses things help rich and poor alike, actually it is arguable that police and fire protection and highways help the poor more than the rich since the poor tend to live in higher crime areas (an unfortunate by-product of the pathologies common to the poor) and in older houses that are less likely to have modern fire protection technology and the rich (like me) have private jets and helicopters, so we don't use the roads much. My problem is when government acts outside of its Constitutional mandate, as in providing charity. Let's face it, the government has done a horrible job managing the problem, after 40 years and trillions of dollars, the number of poor, as a percentage of population has not changed appreciably. IMHO, the primary reason for this is that when a typical Congressman (or President) votes for/against a piece of legislation, his primary concern is how many votes is this going to gain him, not necessarily solving the problem. Government does a very few things well and a lot of things poorly, which is why the Constitution severely limits the powers of the government. Things like helping the poor and downtrodden are handled much better through private charities. I am a big believer in rendering unto to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. Our Constitution clearly delineates Caesar's responsibilities, the rest are God's, through his people.

Positions like these show both a lack of morality and poor education.

Your attitude reminds me of the Pharisee in Luke 18:10-14. I do love the implication that because I disagree with you not on whether or not we should help the poor, but how we best do it, I am some sort of mental and moral defective.

54

"Please get your facts right, and your moral compass re-tuned. Watch decent media."

Fox News? CBN? CTN? No thanks, I prefer more objective reporting. Your patronizing tone notwithstanding, I know a great deal about the formation of Israel and the ensuing difficulties. It is you who seem to have a markedly skewed view of history. The fact that Jews have lived in that area for millenia is irrelevant. They were a tiny minority before Zionist activity dramatically swelled their numbers, thus alarming their Arab neighbors. Absentee Arab landlords are partly to blame, but there is plenty of blame on both sides to go around. The fact is that a Jewish state was carved out of Arab land, and no amount of patronizing protestations to the contrary will change that.

55

40 million is the most recent figure I've seen on the number of Americans without health insurance. Where do we find a single conservate or even moderate Republican with any idea (or even concern) to change that?

Like the rest of Andy's statistics, this too is not a really good one for painting the picture he is trying to paint. While in any given year, there may be 40M uninsured, they are not the same people throughout the year. Nearly half are uninsured for 6 months or less and roughly a 1/3 qualify for some sort of public health coverage; there is also some significant amount that just don't think health insurance is a good deal. I fell into the last category when I was a healthy, single guy in my 20's. Now that I am a healthy, "married with childern" guy in my 40s, I find health insurance to be a much better deal.

Part of the problem is that too many people equate health insurance with health care which is not a valid proposition. A better description of how most view health insurance would be pre-paid healthcare. We expect health insurance to cover routine exams and minor procedures. If we insured our house like that, homeowner's insurance would cover things like cutting the lawn, termite inspections, and replacing air-conditioner filters. It we insured our cars like that our auto insurance would cover oil changes and tune-ups. Much of the way we view health insurance is due to an artifact of the wage & price controls of WW2, where in order to get and keep employess, employers had to offer fringe benefits in-lieu of pay because salaries were restricted. I think a more rational way to provide health insurance would be to actually think of it as insurance. Folks would by an insurance policy to cover castastrophic occurences and then pay for routine maintenance out of your pocket, perhaps in some sort of tax-advantaged way (ala HSAs or "flex-spending" plans). I do think many conservatives favor a move in this direction, along with possibly removing the tax-advantage employers have for providing insurance by making individual health insurance tax deductable as well. A big problem is that with the dependence on employer-provided health insurance, there is very little incentive for individuals to shop around for a policy that might better meet their individual/family needs. Changing the tax incentive structure would help this.

56

ucfenger:

When we talk about the "chronically poor" we find that there are some pathologies that are common to them. Among these are a lack of a high school education, in many cases a lack of even basic literacy, drug or alcohol abuse, and teenage parenthood.

Since these "pathologies" are not uncommon in the middle and upper ecomonic classes, I suggest trying to explain poverty this way doesn't go very far. One could also make the case that poverty smiply makes these problems worse. Don't confuse correlation with cause.

Things like helping the poor and downtrodden are handled much better through private charities.

Where is there any evidence of this? On the other hand there is at least one highly regarded government program (not an entitlement) that has a very positive history:

The Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program supplies supplemental food, health care referrals, and nutrition education to low-income women who are pregnant or postpartum (breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding); it also serves infants and children at nutritional risk." ... WIC services also save the federal government an estimated $337 million by reducing expenditures for Medicaid, disabled children, and special education.

57

Since these "pathologies" are not uncommon in the middle and upper ecomonic classes, I suggest trying to explain poverty this way doesn't go very far.

Really, a lack of a high school education or even basic literacy is not uncommon in the middle and upper economic classes? Well, I guess if you include my 3 year old daughter and 18 month old son, you may have a point. And while drug or alcohol abuse may not be uncommon in the upper, it is certainly much more prevalent among the poor and there is a significant difference in degree. Drinking a few of martinis a night after a long day at work qualifies as alcohol abuse by many standards, but it's impact on ability to function in normal society is pretty insignificant compared to the "crack" or "cystal meth" smoker. With respect to teen pregnancy, again, while it is not uncommon among the upper and middle classes, it is getting to be the norm in lower classes. But teen parenthood is still a major predictor of poverty, even if the girl in question is from the middle or even upper classes.

Where is there any evidence of this? On the other hand there is at least one highly regarded government program (not an entitlement) that has a very positive history:

If the goal of government poverty programs is to keep the poor dependent on government for a subsistence level of existence, then they have been wildly successful. If the goal is to lift people out of poverty then they have been gross failures. But let's explore this through a little thought experiment, if you had $100K and you wanted to help the poor, what would you do with it? Would you give it to the government to fund welfare programs or would you give it to a private charity? Under which program (government or private) do you think the largest percentage of your money would actually get to the people you are trying to help as opposed to funding bureaucratic overhead?

WIC services also save the federal government an estimated $337 million by reducing expenditures for Medicaid, disabled children, and special education

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, but even if we accept their estimate, (because I'm too lazy to review their metrics) saving $337M out of several hundred billion hardly qualifies as very successful even if we assume that is an annual savings, not just cumulative over the life of the program (not clear from the article). But even if we accept that the program has been successful, how does it help people to escape poverty? It looks like it just keeps folks dependent on the government for sustenance.

58

ucfengr,

You seemed to have sidestepped my suggestion to not confuse correlation with causation. Following your approach we can easily deduce that the primary cause of poverty is lack of money.

It never hurts to remember that half of all people are of below average intelligence. Then there are the mentally ill -- not a small group. I remember when we pretty much shut down mental hospitals and threw most of the patients into the streets. Doesn't seem like a big leap to start thinking about how much of poverty can be explained by starting with a "normal" population where a good deal people are not very bright and many others are mentally ill and then asking those groups to compete with people of the opposite attributes in a capitalist economy. (Or take the retarded people with whom I worked, most of whom had serious mental health problems on top of being retarded.)

Sure government anti-poverty programs have not been a grand success. Do we just give up? Have a look at WIC and you'll see why it works, and it does it on a small budget. Headstart has been pretty effective too. You might remember too that FDR's big expansion took place precisely because charities were not doing the job. People were starving, going without medical care, and working 'til they dropped dead. Why, given our collective wealth, would we go back to that?

Whatever moral albatross you wish to hang on the neck of adults living in poverty, I can not see doing the same to their children. They didn't ask to be born into those circumstances (unless you sign on to some new-age reincarnation theory). Set the Constitutional arguments aside for a moment and consider simple compassion.

59

Rob writes: They were a tiny minority before Zionist activity dramatically swelled their numbers, thus alarming their Arab neighbors. Absentee Arab landlords are partly to blame, but there is plenty of blame on both sides to go around. The fact is that a Jewish state was carved out of Arab land, and no amount of patronizing protestations to the contrary will change that.

1. "Arab land" . Some of it through fighting, but much was sold to Zionist settlers. It was not any state at all. 'Palestine' has never existed as such. It was the Israeli *state* that was attacked instantly by Arab states.
2. You assume that Israel was not a just creation even after WWII.
3. You assume that continuous violence against a UN state for 58 years is understandable.
4. Despite driving 100,000s of Jews out of "Arab lands" as well as trying to kill or drive out all Jewish Israelis [there are many others there], you assume that there is some moral equivalence here - enough blame all round etc.
5. How would you 'carve out' a solution now with Islamism? You seem to assume that Israel should cease to exist in favour of yet another failed, extreme Moslem statelet. If you do, say so, because that is what many Arabs intend.
6. 'Alarming their Arab neighbours'. So desperate refugees and traumatised survivors of the Holocaust were 'alarming' and must be attacked on their settlements? Moral compass please!
7. 'Decent Media' are not limited to US sources today. I do not patronise you for having an inexplicable bias against Israel. I take you seriously. That's your choice.
8. 'Zionist activity' [Jewish self-determination, that is] is invalid? I call it normal and just for any people.
Is Kurdish nationalism 'Kurdist activity', Amerindian activity 'Indianism'??

60

Andy S: Once again you are poisoning the well by consigning ucfenger's disagreement with your prescriptions for helping the poor to disagreement with the proposition that the poor ought to be helped. While self-righteousness may be a useful tool in building self-esteem, it hardly is a useful metric in having a productive discussion.

61

You seemed to have sidestepped my suggestion to not confuse correlation with causation. Following your approach we can easily deduce that the primary cause of poverty is lack of money.

Nope, don't think I did. Acutally, poverty is defined by a lack of money, not the caused by it. Among the contributing factors are a lack of education, drug/alcohol abuse, and having children as a teenager.

I remember when we pretty much shut down mental hospitals and threw most of the patients into the streets.

Yeah, I remember the great push from within the Christian Church to kick all the crazies out of the mental hospitals and onto the street. No wait, now that I think about it that push came from our compassionate, liberal friends in the 60's.

Sure government anti-poverty programs have not been a grand success.

This is a bit of an understatement. I'm having a hard time think of any government anti-poverty program that has actually succeeded in lifting large numbers of people out of poverty.

Whatever moral albatross you wish to hang on the neck of adults living in poverty, I can not see doing the same to their children. They didn't ask to be born into those circumstances (unless you sign on to some new-age reincarnation theory). Set the Constitutional arguments aside for a moment and consider simple compassion.

Okay, one more time. I am in favor of helping the poor and downtrodden. I don't think the government has the Constitutional authority to do so, nor do I think they've done a anything approaching a good job of it. In fact, I think they've made a bloody mess of it. When Hurricane Katrina hit, did you write a check to FEMA to help out or did you write a check to the Salvation Army or Red Cross (or some other private charity)? Why?

62

Cheesehead to AndyS:

Once again you are poisoning the well by consigning ucfenger's disagreement with your prescriptions for helping the poor to disagreement with the proposition that the poor ought to be helped. While self-righteousness may be a useful tool in building self-esteem, it hardly is a useful metric in having a productive discussion.

I'm not aware of offering any "prescriptions for helping the poor" and acknowledge that ucfenger is not saying that the poor should not be helped. The discussion has been about whether charities are sufficient and what role the government should have -- and I don't get the 'self-righteousness' slam. What is self-righteousness about believing that those that have more than they need are morally obligated to help those in the precarious position of having less than they need?

For clarity's sake, let me offer some prescriptions for helping the poor.

If, as ucfengr says, "Among the contributing factors [of poverty] are a lack of education, drug/alcohol abuse, and having children as a teenager," let's tackle those by providing excellent education, drug and alcohol rehab/prevention, and superior sex education/contraception to the poor. Since, as ucfengr notes, crime is often associated with poor neighborhoods, let's provide exceptional police protection to those neighborhoods. Unfortunately police protection in highcrime areas is often light. Children in "bad, poor neighboorhood" have a heck of a challenge: bad schoools, ill-equiped parents, and little police presence. Change that and you change the future.

Sadly, since poor neighborhoods by definition don't contribute much to the tax base and don't have many advocates, government services like police protection and education are not priorities. Hence, we continue the cycle of poverty.

Neither you, Cheesehead, nor ucfengr has addressed the obvious problem that half the population is, again by definitiion, of below average intelligence irrespective of economic class and a significant number of people are mentally ill. These people are ripe for exploitation and are exploited. I think there is a government role to prevent/mitigate that. Charities are clearly not up to the task.

63

Andy S: OK, let's look at your prescriptions for helping the poor.

"let's tackle those by providing excellent education, drug and alcohol rehab/prevention, and superior sex education/contraception to the poor. Since, as ucfengr notes, crime is often associated with poor neighborhoods, let's provide exceptional police protection to those neighborhoods."

Excellent education: Anyplace that the poor are truly allowed to break free of the stranglehold of the teachers' unions and their government accomplices they vote against lousy schools with their feet. An excellent example is Minneapolis, where blacks are staying away from crummy schools by the thousands (literally), and creating a real crunch for Minneapolis school district. They do this because they have real options with charter schools and open enrollment in other districts with no caps on how many children can participate. In most states poor people are denied the ability to opt out of bad schools by enrollment caps or total lack of options.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110008032

So I take it you favor charter schools, vouchers, open enrollment and encouraging home schooling.

Drug/alcolhol rehab/prevention: Government programs like DARE have been shown to have no net positive influence on children and sometimes to even slightly exacerbate the problem. The impetus from this has to come from the home, church, and community standards, things which bureaucrats, especially education bureaucrats, seem quite disdainful of. (However, it should be noted that the Dachshund Adoption, Rescue & Education DARE program has been a huge success. ;) )

Sex ed/contraception {upon reflection you might add abortion services}: We sure don't need fourth-graders practicing condom usage on cucumbers and other such commonly reported horrors. The sex ed that is being peddled in government schools is mostly of the condescending type that treats its target audience as too controlled by animal instincts to exercise self-control and make wise choices about postponing sexual activity until done in the confines of marriage. "Yes we favor abstinence, but since we know the little kiddies are going to fool around anyway, let's show them how to avoid pregnancy and give them the abortionist's number when that doesn't work."

Better police presence: Here's one we can agree on. Unfortunately corruption in large city police forces is more than an isolated occurance, but the "broken windows" theory of police enforcement sure did wonders in NYC.

"Neither you, Cheesehead, nor ucfengr has addressed the obvious problem that half the population is, again by definitiion, of below average intelligence irrespective of economic class and a significant number of people are mentally ill."

Half the population is below average intelligence: While this eliptical statement is unarguably true, the message it carries with it is terribly condescending to the many of us who fall into that lower half and yet manage to lead productive lives and who can nonetheless see through smart hucksters like you.

64

Neither you, Cheesehead, nor ucfengr has addressed the obvious problem that half the population is, again by definitiion, of below average intelligence irrespective of economic class and a significant number of people are mentally ill.

Well duh, but so what? Let's set aside the severely mentally retarded and severely mentally ill, because that really is a separate problem where there may be some role for the state (but not federal) governments. Let's look at intelligence as measured by IQ. If you look at a bell curve representing intelligence, you find that nearly 70% of the population has in IQ between 85 and 115 and 96% of the population is above 70 (below 70 is indicative of mental retardation). So looking at IQ as a measure of intelligence, you find that over 90% of the population should be able to function fairly well in society. An 80 IQ would probably not make you eligible to be an engineer or accountant, but you could probably be a decent plumber, carpenter, auto mechanic, or computer help desk technician. A decent plumber, auto mechanice, etc. can make a better living than many "white collar" professionals, so obviously a below average intelligence is not a big a predictor of poverty as the other pathologies discussed.

65

An 80 IQ would probably not make you eligible to be an engineer or accountant, but you could probably be a decent plumber, carpenter, auto mechanic, or computer help desk technician.

Computer help desk technician?! That explains the collective frustration that we all feel when phoning for tech support.

As for those other jobs — all of which require complex reasoning to solve hard, real-world problems in addition to people-skills — at best someone who is intellectually challenged could be an assistant. However, the issue is not that people who are not too smart cannot be gainfully employed but that in a challenging world they compete with lots of smart people and are easily taken advantage of. More than 20% of the population falls into the 70-89 IQ bracket, more than 15% in the 80-89 bracket .

Cheesehead: So I take it you favor charter schools, vouchers, open enrollment and encouraging home schooling.

Except for vouchers, I do. There is no reason for all schools being cut from the same cloth and every reason to experiment. Too bad so few people are capable of good home schooling (due to both parents working or lack of ability/training).

66

"Too bad so f