What Can You Prove? (David Corn & Jim Pinkerton)

[look]

Originally Posted by Ocean

The problem is that you don't need to be stupid or dishonest to fall in the trap of repeating an argument that may, on surface, sound right, but that upon further examination contains fallacies. This is particularly the case when any of us repeats party lines, which we don't question or challenge enough. That's why it's important to come out of the echo chamber from time to time and listen to others who may present reasonable arguments. Labeling others as either stupid or dishonest leads nowhere. We all make the same mistakes of labeling others and repeating party lines, it's just a question of degree.

Been there, done that. Repeatedly.

[look]

Originally Posted by kezboard

I'm pretty sure one was in South Carolina, one in Alabama, one in Texas, and the last two were in Florida and Missouri, two states whose Southernness is I guess debatable, but since the whole point I was making is bullshit, a little more bullshit doesn't really matter. The search results are different now, so I can't check again.

The other locations were Egypt (where the murdering was done by a Coptic Christian man and used by someone on a message board to make a similarly snarky point to mine), Vietnam, Ghana, and Pakistan.

A-HA!

[graz]

Originally Posted by look

I fail to see how statements like 'people have to get past the idea that they gain some benefit by floating arguments that intelligent and informed people couldn't possibly credit' lead to productive discussion, because what I get from these type of phrases is that if harkin is not stupid, he should be reaching the same conclusions I (stephanie) reach. If he does not he's lying, disingenuous, etc. This type of approach is a sort of nannying, if you will.

Regarding my second bolded, I point out again, that you are accusing people who are using their very own brains to produce honest questions and seek rational discussion, of engaging in arguments 'so unlikely as to appear to be either the product of paranoid fantasy or a scare tactic not believed by those who spread it.' Please reconsider the continued use of this sort of insult.

Perhaps you would be better off allowing people to argue and engage on their own terms. Put the nanny in neutral.

Though maybe, you have succumbed to paranoid fantasy, and are easily duped by scare tactics. So as to be unwilling to concede the points underlying the tactics you find insensitive.

Possible alternative solution: maybe all posters could consult with you and receive approval before submitting. Just thinking out loud here - and all thoughts ought to be given a fair hearing - right?

Originally Posted by graz

Perhaps you would be better off allowing people to argue and engage on their own terms. Put the nanny in neutral.

Though maybe, you have succumbed to paranoid fantasy, and are easily duped by scare tactics. So as to be unwilling to concede the points underlying the tactics you find insensitive.

Possible alternative solution: maybe all posters could consult with you and receive approval before submitting. Just thinking out loud here - and all thoughts ought to be given a fair hearing - right?

And what are you doing here? Trolling. Who are you to suggest commenting solutions here. Maybe put the creepy troll in neutral.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by look

what I get from these type of phrases is that if harkin is not stupid, he should be reaching the same conclusions I (stephanie) reach. If he does not he's lying, disingenuous, etc.

Not at all. I am quite sparing in forming the view I expressed and I was quite specific as to why I formed it. I don't at all think that all reasonable people will think like me (edit, and I think my interactions at this forum demonstrate that). However, that doesn't change the fact that some arguments don't seem serious, and rather than allow the tactic to work I think when that happens it needs to be pointed out.

You seem to me to be spending a lot of your time since arriving in defending rightwing posters, as if the reactions certain of them get are due to politics, not something else (I'm thinking of Whatfur here, not Harkin, as so far as I can tell Harkin doesn't get into the personal stuff in the same way). I think it's pretty clear it's something else, and that reasonable conservative arguments are addressed fairly and even with pleasure. (Edit: and even in the current argument I was nudging Harkin, saying I don't think you really believe this is logical, as if you look at the premises, it doesn't stand and pointing that out. I'm trying to encourage him to move past the rhetoric, which is the only way discussion becomes possible. But that's between him and me, should our discussion continue, and you jumping in to tell me how you think I should interact with Harkin really isn't useful.)

However -- and now I'm doing what I just complained about, as this is nannying, admittedly -- that you'd do better to just make your reasonable arguments and see how people react -- there's a lot of history in interacting with people and observing how they argue that goes into a lot of the reactions you see.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by look

Regarding my first bold of your statement, I am talking about the possibility of Sharia courts being established through the threat of violence, the embrace of multiculturalism, etc.

Yes, but as I pointed out I think there's an important distinction that needs to be made as to what we are talking about. Sharia "courts" that somehow replace other courts and US law, other than between free participants who choose it (and in civil cases only)? That would be bad, but I see no sign that anyone is establishing such things through violence (that not what the British examples are, they seem to be some form of arbitration that is subject to criticism, certainly, depending on the details, but not the hypothetical imposing of sharia law that people have been claiming to worry about here). As far as that goes, short of having a much larger population of Muslims and amending the Constitution in a way that the religious right hasn't been able to in support of milder aims closer to the acceptability range of most Americans, I don't see any way such a thing would occur in the US. It simply wouldn't be permitted under our legal system and Constitution, and I can't conceive of a threat of violence that realistically would work. If you can, spell it out. Given all of this, it is simply a "we are overrun with secret enemies with secret goals" kind of argument, and I'm not going to treat such an argument (or the effort to whip up fears in people about such things) with respect and seriousness -- it's along the lines of Birtherism or Trutherism, as I said before.

I realize we're the U.S. of friggin' A., and there will be push-back against such procedures in some quarters. Still, we have had the Pediatric Association suggest ritual nicking in lieu of FGM and Major Hasan's psychotic behavior overlooked due to multicultural sensitivity, which was brought to a head due to his imminent deployment to a war zone.

These are quite different in character (and not due to violence, which I think would get a major backlash, not the imposition of sharia law of all things -- as you say, the problem in these is oversensitivity, not fear) than a decision that our law doesn't apply. Just as a structural matter, what people who are claiming sharia law will be implemented are talking about just isn't possible without convincing a majority of legislators, etc. -- which again is why I consider the argument fundamentally unserious.

[jacks_mind]

Originally Posted by Unit

Second, Japan is a very bad example for 1) since they did try to spend their way out and instead prolonged the recession. For your point

Well that is certainly the Austrian view. But the Keynesian view is that the spending is what kept Japan afloat:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle1674061/

2) I don't know of any example. The only one that is usually mentioned is WWII but that's a completely inappropriate analogy because the economy only recovered *after* the war ended.

It only recovered fully after; t was certainly on its way to trend-growth due to fiscal and monetary actions of the FDR administration.

I'm saying that the concept of inflation might be meaningless, in that it can't be measured (unless in truly hyperinflationary regimes). Too many variables are at work, prices going up, prices going down, quality going up, new products, new tastes etc....I'm very skeptical of any "measure" of the "overall price level".

I don't think it's that hard at all, you get an average of prices over time which I think is the crude basis behind the CPI. As for inflation, we know for a fact that what you pay for a roll of paper towels will just about double every 33 years or so (with almost everything being the same).

But bureaucrats have no idea what those more productive uses are, and thus have no idea abt what type of retraining is needed.

Of course they do. We know for a fact that if everyone started spending again (or if all companies hired back the 8 million again) we would be out of this recession. Now they might not know the best way of doing that. The free-market is good at many things and better than central planning many times--setting prices, allocation of resources, etc.--but it's not better than central planning in many other ways, like getting us out of this recession. As far as the free-market is concerned if everyone wanted to save and cut back on jobs at the same time, the free-market can't make all these people with their defensive mindset start spending again.

I disagree. The govt may have initiated a very primitive form of the internet for instance, but the internet as we know it today evolved in a fairly organic way, without central supervision.

It doesn't matter. The point is who initiated it. The free-market saw no money in it. It was the R&D of government-backed labs. How many companies do you know that are doing research into particle physics or astrophysics? There's no money in it for the short term. But if some amazing technology (like the internet) comes out of these research programs it will be further evidence of one that failure of provincial thinking of the free-market.

I personally find not relying on foreign oil extremely scary: the more international inter-reliance, the least likelihood of major conflicts. The Iraq war was declared by a government against another government, if we're going to compare free-markets to govt action let's at least put examples in the right column.

I have another way to foster international inter-reliance among nations: let's all trade hard-core drugs. Everyone would be in great shape if we just had meth/cocaine/heroin going every which way across borders. No, there will be trade, but let's do it with things that are the best of the best for society. r. As for Iraq, my point was that you can at least fathom a cost-benefit analysis whereby the US decides to go to war for securing oil--the oil just makes it beneficial to go to war. This would be a result of a failure of the free-market: the inability of the free-market to make a large initial capital investment to move from a cheap resource to a cheaper one because of transition costs and self-industrial bias (erroneously believing ones own company is always 'better' than anything else that comes along.

Again, let's not confuse free-market with corporatism. Markets are free when there are no govt distortions. If you point at monopolists that derive their privilege from govt legislation and are then "free" to do whatever they want, that's not free-market in my book.

Fine, call it what you want, but I'm arguing what you believe is the free-market doesn't exist. Your ideal always becomes the 'corrupt' free-market. Your perfect ideal does not exist and this 'corrupting' flaw is inherent to the free-market.

Because the main discipline (competition) is being erased by the regulatory system. If I understand Enron for instance excelled in regulatory arbitrage and was very well connected in Washington. Same for BP. Big Tobacco came out victorious from the tobacco settlements, in that Congress basically erased any international competition for them and also any chance of smaller competitors to survive the many regulatory loopholes now in place. Ethanol as you say is now thoroughly entrenched.

This is the famous, yet evidence-less response of most Austrians. If there is a problem with the free-market, it must be regulation. It is amazing how every single response is always something the government did. But it is undeniably obvious that even in a minimal-state, almost anarchical society, if a profit motive exists and if there are agents who do not uphold a minimal moral code with respect to business ethics, you will find things like Enron to exist. The profit motive incentivizes one to act immorally. I am not sure how anyone can deny something that is so unbelievably obvious. Not that I am saying you are, because surely you admit that profit + humans = actions that would normally be morally forbidden? Surly you admit that Enron is at least POSSIBLE in a minimal state and it doesn't have to have anything to do with the government, right? It's at least POSSIBLE?

[Unit]

Originally Posted by jacks_mind

Well that is certainly the Austrian view. But the Keynesian view is that the spending is what kept Japan afloat:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle1674061/

I'm sure there are many causes to the lost decade, but Keynesian policy don't seem to have have helped. That's the first observation. Now if you want to assume that things *would have been much worse* and then deduce that keynesianism helped, then you run into the problem of drawing conclusions from manufactured hypothesis.

It only recovered fully after; t was certainly on its way to trend-growth due to fiscal and monetary actions of the FDR administration.

Consumer spending, saving and investment never recovered during the war. GDP numbers "looked" ok because we were building lots of bombs and stuff like that, same for unemployment (lots of idle resources were being shipped off to the war theater). The recovery started after the war ended when prices were deregulated and Truman stopped freaking investors out. By the way, the keynesians at the time were against the demobilization because their models were predicting a recession.

I don't think it's that hard at all, you get an average of prices over time which I think is the crude basis behind the CPI. As for inflation, we know for a fact that what you pay for a roll of paper towels will just about double every 33 years or so (with almost everything being the same).

I'm already lost.

Of course they do. We know for a fact that if everyone started spending again (or if all companies hired back the 8 million again) we would be out of this recession. Now they might not know the best way of doing that. The free-market is good at many things and better than central planning many times--setting prices, allocation of resources, etc.--but it's not better than central planning in many other ways, like getting us out of this recession. As far as the free-market is concerned if everyone wanted to save and cut back on jobs at the same time, the free-market can't make all these people with their defensive mindset start spending again.

There might be a perfectly good reason why these companies *shouldn't* hire the 8 million back. If the jobs lost were the result of bad investments and mistaken risk calculations then these workers would be better off being re-absorbed in other sectors of the economy. Central planning has no clue of course about all this.

It doesn't matter. The point is who initiated it. The free-market saw no money in it. It was the R&D of government-backed labs. How many companies do you know that are doing research into particle physics or astrophysics? There's no money in it for the short term. But if some amazing technology (like the internet) comes out of these research programs it will be further evidence of one that failure of provincial thinking of the free-market.

Yes but for every one thing that the govt starts, society starts a thousand. Just because Google is "part of" the internet, there's no reason for discounting its invention as less important the the initial pentagon email. Imagine putting central planning in charge of deciding what should Apple come out with next, and also deciding for everyone on what people should be using as far as smart phones go.

I have another way to foster international inter-reliance among nations: let's all trade hard-core drugs. Everyone would be in great shape if we just had meth/cocaine/heroin going every which way across borders. No, there will be trade, but let's do it with things that are the best of the best for society. r. As for Iraq, my point was that you can at least fathom a cost-benefit analysis whereby the US decides to go to war for securing oil--the oil just makes it beneficial to go to war. This would be a result of a failure of the free-market: the inability of the free-market to make a large initial capital investment to move from a cheap resource to a cheaper one because of transition costs and self-industrial bias (erroneously believing ones own company is always 'better' than anything else that comes along.

No I'm willing to assume that the US went to war to secure oil fields, but this is a mistake in central planning, not of free-markets. When people talk abt market failure they usually refer to a situation where many individuals acting rationally from their own perspective end up causing suboptimal outcomes for the whole society (think pollution). But here you are pointing to the decision of a few politicians to go to war: if that's not central planning I don't know what is.

Fine, call it what you want, but I'm arguing what you believe is the free-market doesn't exist. Your ideal always becomes the 'corrupt' free-market. Your perfect ideal does not exist and this 'corrupting' flaw is inherent to the free-market.

Sure, no one's ideals actually exist, but we all try to strive towards them, at the margin.

This is the famous, yet evidence-less response of most Austrians. If there is a problem with the free-market, it must be regulation. It is amazing how every single response is always something the government did. But it is undeniably obvious that even in a minimal-state, almost anarchical society, if a profit motive exists and if there are agents who do not uphold a minimal moral code with respect to business ethics, you will find things like Enron to exist. The profit motive incentivizes one to act immorally. I am not sure how anyone can deny something that is so unbelievably obvious. Not that I am saying you are, because surely you admit that profit + humans = actions that would normally be morally forbidden? Surly you admit that Enron is at least POSSIBLE in a minimal state and it doesn't have to have anything to do with the government, right? It's at least POSSIBLE?

It depends: the profit motive also incentivizes to please one's customer. Maybe we should stick to the immoral acts themselves, instead of condemning one of the main aspect of society, namely that most people are self-interested and that prices (and hence profits) are a guide for people to follow in trying to meet the various demands.

[wovenstrap]

Huh? It's no closer to censorship than a letter to CBS requesting that they find a better show than "Two and a Half Men."

[look]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Not at all. I am quite sparing in forming the view I expressed and I was quite specific as to why I formed it. I don't at all think that all reasonable people will think like me (edit, and I think my interactions at this forum demonstrate that). However, that doesn't change the fact that some arguments don't seem serious, and rather than allow the tactic to work I think when that happens it needs to be pointed out.

You seem to me to be spending a lot of your time since arriving in defending rightwing posters, as if the reactions certain of them get are due to politics, not something else (I'm thinking of Whatfur here, not Harkin, as so far as I can tell Harkin doesn't get into the personal stuff in the same way). I think it's pretty clear it's something else, and that reasonable conservative arguments are addressed fairly and even with pleasure. (Edit: and even in the current argument I was nudging Harkin, saying I don't think you really believe this is logical, as if you look at the premises, it doesn't stand and pointing that out. I'm trying to encourage him to move past the rhetoric, which is the only way discussion becomes possible. But that's between him and me, should our discussion continue, and you jumping in to tell me how you think I should interact with Harkin really isn't useful.)

However -- and now I'm doing what I just complained about, as this is nannying, admittedly -- that you'd do better to just make your reasonable arguments and see how people react -- there's a lot of history in interacting with people and observing how they argue that goes into a lot of the reactions you see.

Thanks for your reply. Along with your statement about 'actual discussion,' I'll just let stand the three sentences from your original post that I found objectionable:

Harkin, I assume that you are smart enough to understand that your conclusions don't follow from the support you give. Thus, you don't appear to me to be making a serious argument in which you really believe. That makes actual discussion impossible.

Given that you probably aren't entirely ignorant (even if only from culture and observance) of how similar types of scripture and interpretation and so on gets dealt with in various ways in Christianity and Judaism, it seems unlikely that you -- or any of the others making these idiotic arguments -- really believe them.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...9&postcount=50

[look]

Yes, but as I pointed out I think there's an important distinction that needs to be made as to what we are talking about. Sharia "courts" that somehow replace other courts and US law, other than between free participants who choose it (and in civil cases only)? That would be bad, but I see no sign that anyone is establishing such things through violence (that not what the British examples are, they seem to be some form of arbitration that is subject to criticism, certainly, depending on the details, but not the hypothetical imposing of sharia law that people have been claiming to worry about here). As far as that goes, short of having a much larger population of Muslims and amending the Constitution in a way that the religious right hasn't been able to in support of milder aims closer to the acceptability range of most Americans, I don't see any way such a thing would occur in the US. It simply wouldn't be permitted under our legal system and Constitution, and I can't conceive of a threat of violence that realistically would work. If you can, spell it out. Given all of this, it is simply a "we are overrun with secret enemies with secret goals" kind of argument, and I'm not going to treat such an argument (or the effort to whip up fears in people about such things) with respect and seriousness -- it's along the lines of Birtherism or Trutherism, as I said before.

These are quite different in character (and not due to violence, which I think would get a major backlash, not the imposition of sharia law of all things -- as you say, the problem in these is oversensitivity, not fear) than a decision that our law doesn't apply. Just as a structural matter, what people who are claiming sharia law will be implemented are talking about just isn't possible without convincing a majority of legislators, etc. -- which again is why I consider the argument fundamentally unserious.

Please note I also mentioned 'the embrace of multicultualism, etc.' For example civil Sharia courts would be 'voluntary,' as you mentioned arbritration courts are. Freedom of religion would be the basis for the establishment of such practices as Sharia courts and FGM. Of course, FGM would be illegal, but how often would it be overlooked or excused? As far as threats of violence, we need look no further than the fear people have of drawing Mohammed. Did Comedy Central ever air that program?

As far as the number of American Muslims, wiki didn't have an exact number, but here is an article I'm quoting from because it reminds me of an article I read a few years ago that said Muslim conversion is overtaking Christian conversion. The original article said that part of the reason was that Islam is more (for a want of a better word) 'pure.' And I understand what the converts mean, because there are so many 'worldly' Christians around.

With some six million adherents in the United States, Islam is said to be the nation's fastest-growing religion, fueled by immigration, high birth rates and widespread conversion. One expert estimates that 25,000 people a year become Muslims in this country; some clerics say they have seen conversion rates quadruple since Sept. 11.

Experts say Islam is attractive because of its universal message -- the faithful believe that everyone is born Muslim and thus call the transformation reversion, not conversion -- and because its teachings incorporate other traditions, honoring Jesus Christ, the Jewish patriarch Abraham and other Biblical figures as prophets. Though missionary work is rare in Islam, spreading the message is demanded by the Koran. Conversion is as simple as reciting one sentence -- ''I bear witness that there is no deity except Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger'' -- in front of witnesses, a ceremony known as Shahadah.

''There's no class,'' said Khalid Yahya Blankinship, chairman of the religion department at Temple University. ''There isn't really a formalized requirement, you don't have to be tested.'' Mr. Blankinship, who converted to Islam in 1973 and has since witnessed 100 Shahadahs, added: ''It's very important that Islam should spread. The idea is that one should want other souls to be saved.''

The vast majority of converts are African-Americans, who make up about a third of Muslims in the United States. Thousands find Allah while in jail or in recovery from drug or alcohol addiction. Less familiar are the lapsed Catholics and lost Jews, often highly educated professionals, who come to the mosque.

Many convert because they want to marry a Muslim who demands it, a common reason for conversions in any religion.

''I would never have changed if it wasn't for Rania,'' David Nerviani, a St. Louis police officer, said of his Egyptian-born wife, a bartender he met on patrol. ''It's probably not that deep for me.''

Others find Islam through friendships on college campuses, research papers on world religions or trolling the Internet.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9679C8B63

[operative]

Originally Posted by jacks_mind

And China's GDP is doing great!:




And they did a bigger stimulus (as a percent of GDP) than we did:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

Oh, there's more to the story you say? Oh, you mean the GDP numbers aren't exclusively correlated with government spending, you say?

THEN DON'T TELL ME GERMANY IS DOING GREAT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO A STIMULUS!

Here's the Keynesian view:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...about-germany/

Pinkerton is a one-man talking points echo chamber.

China's stimulus was also much better targeted and not bloated with pork. Obama should have designed the stimulus himself, made it pork-free, and had someone introduce it. Instead he punted, like he always does, and left Pelosi and Reid to do the heavy lifting. That left a bill that was bloated with pork and ineffective. If Obama was a bit less lazy and obsessed with vacationing and the celebrity lifestyle that his post affords, and actually worked hard for the first time in his privileged life, maybe we would be in a different spot.

Originally Posted by operative

China's stimulus was also much better targeted and not bloated with pork. Obama should have designed the stimulus himself, made it pork-free, and had someone introduce it. Instead he punted, like he always does, and left Pelosi and Reid to do the heavy lifting. That left a bill that was bloated with pork and ineffective. If Obama was a bit less lazy and obsessed with vacationing and the celebrity lifestyle that his post affords, and actually worked hard for the first time in his privileged life, maybe we would be in a different spot.

On one hand you seem to give Obama cover for the stimulus not being his, but you make up for it by blasting him. I think he owns it...there was nothing preventing him from vetoing. Although you are right...he is "the buck stops over there" President.

[operative]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

On one hand you seem to give Obama cover for the stimulus not being his, but you make up for it by blasting him. I think he owns it...there was nothing preventing him from vetoing. Although you are right...he is "the buck stops over there" President.

As president, I think he must own up to what he signs, even if he really wasn't the one crafting the bill. The guy is basically the anti-Clinton. He's not remarkably intelligent (left-wing hagiographers' assertions aside), he's not too enthused, he's certainly not a workhorse.

So all the left has, well, left, is to cry racism when one notes that Obama might be a bit, well, lazy. A patently absurd rebuttal, being that the laziest US Senator is also the whitest (Bob Casey).

[handle]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

..he is "the buck stops over there" President.

Obama is Bush?

[operative]

Originally Posted by handle

Obama is Bush?

Obama's more Carter than anyone. Though to Obama's credit, I don't think he's an utterly deranged megalomaniac, unlike Carter.

[handle]

Originally Posted by operative

Obama's more Carter than anyone. Though to Obama's credit, I don't think he's an utterly deranged megalomaniac, unlike Carter.

So that makes Bush Ford, or Nixon?

[operative]

Originally Posted by handle

So that makes Bush Ford, or Nixon?

More Ford than Nixon, for sure. Well-meaning guy, not quite cut out to be president but having a dignified post-presidency.

[jacks_mind]

Originally Posted by Unit

I'm sure there are many causes to the lost decade, but Keynesian policy don't seem to have have helped. That's the first observation. Now if you want to assume that things *would have been much worse* and then deduce that keynesianism helped, then you run into the problem of drawing conclusions from manufactured hypothesis.

Aren't all hypotheses manufactured? Actually I agree that it is hard to prove but the two sides are on the same epistemological footing. The Austrian also says, "Look, if you just let the free market work we would get out of it faster." Well this hypothesis is just as 'manufactured' as the keynesian one. There is no obvious prima facie empirical evidence that this is the case, so how do you decide between the two.

1) Appeal to authority. Very few economists believe that fiscal policy doesn't help, and fewer buy into the Austrian take on things. Fewer than 1% of economists buy into the do-nothing Austrian idea.
2) Theory. It is the simple math that GDP = G + C + I + X - M and even libertarian leaners like Megan Mcardle admit that you can increase GDP when the government spends more. We even can go so far as to perpetually employ these workers in some form of Socialism, I think the theory is very strong on this point.
3) The little empirical evidence we have. The depression is probably the most striking example. Growth almost exactly matched policy. Sure monetary policy played a big (bigger?) role, but it was WWII that got us out of the GD, very much a Keynesian idea.


So if Keynesian stimulus has a justification problem it does so only as much than the much-less justified do-nothing hypothesis. But EVEN IF the stimulus had little effect, it was worth trying at the time to avoid a great depression (yes, even at the cost of 0.8trillion).

Consumer spending, saving and investment never recovered during the war. GDP numbers "looked" ok because we were building lots of bombs and stuff like that, same for unemployment (lots of idle resources were being shipped off to the war theater). The recovery started after the war ended when prices were deregulated and Truman stopped freaking investors out. By the way, the keynesians at the time were against the demobilization because their models were predicting a recession.

It's completely fine if it only "looks" ok. We know that we wouldn't be making bombs forever, and we know that the government won't be employing so many construction workers forever in the current recession. The private industry will have to take over unless we want to permanently hire these people and increase the government size. The point is which world is better: having numbers that only "look" good, see a small dip as private industry takes over on the road to recovery an then recovery OR languishing at high employment for a long time with industry in a holding pattern and no incentive to hire. I don't mean this to sound as a false choice but only explain why it is completely expected if we are at suboptimal numbers until the private industry takes over. As for Truman, I think you have your history wrong. 1) Truman didn't take office until '46 and 2) the recovery was well underway by that time:

GDP:


Unemployment:
http://www.workbloom.net/wp-content/...depression.gif

To the first point, the Keynesian theory can explain both these plots very well, including the small bump.

I'm already lost.

Here you go:
1) Buy some paper towels
2) Multiply that number by 2
3) That's the cost of paper towels 33 years from now
4) That cost increase --> inflation

pretty hard to deny.

There might be a perfectly good reason why these companies *shouldn't* hire the 8 million back. If the jobs lost were the result of bad investments and mistaken risk calculations then these workers would be better off being re-absorbed in other sectors of the economy. Central planning has no clue of course about all this.

I agree to some extent; we should have retraining programs. But the idea that the 8 million jobs was exactly equal to bad investments and there was no collateral damage from this 'sector shock',to use an Austrian phrase, (where collateral damage is someone who loses their job that wouldn't have lost their job if there was no bubble) is just absurd. Clearly there is slack in the economy and a decent portion of people should get their jobs back, if companies would only hire.


Seen another way. Here is the housing bubble:

http://www.american.com/graphics/200...r_green_r2.jpg

Where the red line would roughly be "trend-growth" (if there was no bubble).

How do these number affect real GDP (going back to 1995):




You don't really see the bubble here because housing (although the biggest industry) is only 16% of the economy. But we clearly know there was a bubble, but look at the drop in GDP. We have been growing about 2.7% since 1995. So an excess in investment as you say started the bubble, but the resulting decline is so much worse than the sum of initial bad investments.

And for unemployment:



So we agree there was a bubble, but the resulting damage the popping caused cannot in any way, shape, or form be explained by 'malinvestments' alone. There is no reason so many people should be unemployed and we shouldn't be growing at a faster rate. Well I guess there are a reasons, but it has almost nothing to do with previous bad investments or the 'excesses' of the past.

Yes but for every one thing that the govt starts, society starts a thousand. Just because Google is "part of" the internet, there's no reason for discounting its invention as less important the the initial pentagon email. Imagine putting central planning in charge of deciding what should Apple come out with next, and also deciding for everyone on what people should be using as far as smart phones go.

That is a straw-man. I never said that the government should do everything, only that the free market can't do everything.

No I'm willing to assume that the US went to war to secure oil fields, but this is a mistake in central planning, not of free-markets. When people talk abt market failure they usually refer to a situation where many individuals acting rationally from their own perspective end up causing suboptimal outcomes for the whole society (think pollution). But here you are pointing to the decision of a few politicians to go to war: if that's not central planning I don't know what is.

Ok then make the assumption that several companies lobbied hard to get the politicans to act they way they did, wouldn't this be a market failure?

Sure, no one's ideals actually exist, but we all try to strive towards them, at the margin.

Ok let me try again. Ignore the word ideal. "Fine, call it what you want, but I'm arguing what you believe is the free-market doesn't exist. Your idea of what the free market is always becomes the 'corrupt' free-market. This 'corrupting' flaw is inherent to the free-market.

It depends: the profit motive also incentivizes to please one's customer. Maybe we should stick to the immoral acts themselves, instead of condemning one of the main aspect of society, namely that most people are self-interested and that prices (and hence profits) are a guide for people to follow in trying to meet the various demands.

That's fine, I know the free market can do good things, I never said it couldn't. But do you admit that it can produce Enrons independent of government regulation, that this corrupting influence is inherent to a free-market vis-a-vis government central planning?

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by look

Please note I also mentioned 'the embrace of multicultualism, etc.' For example civil Sharia courts would be 'voluntary,' as you mentioned arbritration courts are. Freedom of religion would be the basis for the establishment of such practices as Sharia courts and FGM. Of course, FGM would be illegal, but how often would it be overlooked or excused?

Again, you are mixing a variety of issues. The people ranting about how sharia is going to be the law of the land in the US aren't talking about Muslims electing to use sharia courts to arbitrate civil disputes. Like I said, I would have some concerns about this, depending on how applied, because I would want to be sure that the people involved freely elected the forum and that due process applied and so on, but there are safeguards in place to ensure that already (which the people talking about this never address -- again, because they are envisioning scary laws that apply to you and me), and I have seen no argument addressing why these safeguards would stop applying. Just saying "multiculturalism" doesn't do it.

And, yes, of course FGM is illegal, and the First Amendment is no impediment to this and as a criminal matter it of course is subject to the US laws unless we somehow decided to amend them -- which, again, seems incredibly far-fetched. Arguments like this make me wonder if we live in different countries, because I may be in a city Sarah Palin considers not part of "real America," but people sure as hell aren't sitting around thinking that hmm, multiculturalism means that we should be nice and allow FGM. And people aren't going to be scared into it either -- I think a threat is the best way to make sure it doesn't happen, based on my perception of American culture.

As far as threats of violence, we need look no further than the fear people have of drawing Mohammed. Did Comedy Central ever air that program?

Eh, is Comedy Central afraid? Or being stupidly overly-sensitive?

As far as the number of American Muslims, wiki didn't have an exact number, but here is an article I'm quoting from because it reminds me of an article I read a few years ago that said Muslim conversion is overtaking Christian conversion.

It might be -- most people here hardly need to convert to Christianity, after all, and Muslim conversions include Black Muslims and so on. I still think that it's a risible argument that the US is soon going to enact sharia as the law of the land. I'm certainly willing -- as a liberal and a feminist who'd hardly enjoy living under fundamentalist Muslim rule, as I'm supposed to be worried about -- to take my chances that secular American culture wins out. If Islam is so successful in the war of ideas that I'm wrong and soon it's all about the ACLU defending us against the efforts of the Muslim Majority to encroach on our civil liberties, well, I still have faith in the Constitution and, heck, maybe it's a sign from God that they are right. But it seems a ridiculous thing to worry about and there are better ways to deal with it than --- well, and that's the question, right? Assuming I bought into the Watch Out, Sharia Is Coming! thing, what would I do differently? Oppose the building of mosques? What?

I mean, I actually do believe that the fear of Islam may have more to do with not wanting them here, where they can spread their religious doctrine (that seemed to be a subtext in some of the Tennessee reaction that I've seen), but you can't say that trying to spread your religious views through conversion is a threat. Not in the US (and even though it can be really annoying).

[TwinSwords]

Check out this stunning column by mainstream Republican and Fox News fixture Cal Thomas. He calls Muslims "evil" and openly advocates suspending their Constitutional rights.

We are doing a poor job of fighting the terrorists at home if we continue to allow Muslim immigrants, especially from Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, into America. We won't win this war if we permit the uncontrolled construction of mosques, as well as Islamic schools, some of which already have sown the seeds from which future terrorists will be cultivated. We won't win this war if we continue to permit the large-scale conversion to Islam of prison inmates, many of whom become radicalized and upon release enlist in al-Qaida's army.

Even Syria understands the threat better than our own government. The New York Times reported on Sept. 3 that the Syrian government has asked imams for recordings of their Friday sermons and has begun closely monitoring what is taught in religious schools: "(Syria), which had sought to show solidarity with Islamist groups and allow religious figures a greater role in public life, has recently reversed course, moving forcefully to curb the influence of Muslim conservatives in its mosques, public universities and charities."

What does Syria know that we refuse to acknowledge out of fear of offending "sensibilities"?

We must purge the evil from among us, or else.

(Via/Via)

[TwinSwords]

With some six million adherents in the United States ... One expert estimates that 25,000 people a year become Muslims

LOL. At that terrifying rate of conversion, the six million will double their number in (tremble) 240 years!!! Aahhhhhh!!!!!!!!

In the year 2250, there will be twelve million Muslims in the USA!!! Aaahhhh!!!!!

And you know what? They will be a majority of the US population, assuming no other population growth, in just six thousand years!!!!

Run away! Run away!!!

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by look

I'll just let stand the three sentences from your original post that I found objectionable

For the record, I still have no problem with them. I've explained why already, so won't repeat myself.

[look]

[QUOTE]Well, that's what I've been talking about. And the very question is how free Muslim women would be in such courts regarding divorce and forced marriage. Since you are a feminst and a lawyer, will you please tell what these safeguards are, and what possible blocks there could be to their implementation. And I do think a lot of things are overlooked in the name of multiculturalism and freedom of religion. For example the Mormon compounds where very young girls are forced to marry much older men.

And, yes, of course FGM is illegal, and the First Amendment is no impediment to this and as a criminal matter it of course is subject to the US laws unless we somehow decided to amend them -- which, again, seems incredibly far-fetched. Arguments like this make me wonder if we live in different countries, because I may be in a city Sarah Palin considers not part of "real America," but people sure as hell aren't sitting around thinking that hmm, multiculturalism means that we should be nice and allow FGM. And people aren't going to be scared into it either -- I think a threat is the best way to make sure it doesn't happen, based on my perception of American culture.

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes, because I never implied there would be an attempt to amend laws prohibiting FGM. I suggested that they could be overlooked and excused in the name of multiculturalism and freedom of religion, much in the way Christian Scientists who don't medical help for their children can be excused.

Eh, is Comedy Central afraid? Or being stupidly overly-sensitive?

I've heard Comedy Central called many things, but never overly-sensitive.

It might be -- most people here hardly need to convert to Christianity, after all, and Muslim conversions include Black Muslims and so on. I still think that it's a risible argument that the US is soon going to enact sharia as the law of the land. I'm certainly willing -- as a liberal and a feminist who'd hardly enjoy living under fundamentalist Muslim rule, as I'm supposed to be worried about -- to take my chances that secular American culture wins out. If Islam is so successful in the war of ideas that I'm wrong and soon it's all about the ACLU defending us against the efforts of the Muslim Majority to encroach on our civil liberties, well, I still have faith in the Constitution and, heck, maybe it's a sign from God that they are right. But it seems a ridiculous thing to worry about and there are better ways to deal with it than --- well, and that's the question, right? Assuming I bought into the Watch Out, Sharia Is Coming! thing, what would I do differently? Oppose the building of mosques? What?

I mean, I actually do believe that the fear of Islam may have more to do with not wanting them here, where they can spread their religious doctrine (that seemed to be a subtext in some of the Tennessee reaction that I've seen), but you can't say that trying to spread your religious views through conversion is a threat. Not in the US (and even though it can be really annoying).

Yes, over all, most our civil liberties, will remain intact, the question is what will be going on in various enclaves. As practiced in many lands, Islam is horrifically misogynistic and violent. That creeping Sharia, as found in Britain, may take root here, is troubling to me.

[look]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

LOL. At that terrifying rate of conversion, the six million will double their number in (tremble) 240 years!!! Aahhhhhh!!!!!!!!

In the year 2250, there will be twelve million Muslims in the USA!!! Aaahhhh!!!!!

And you know what? They will be a majority of the US population, assuming no other population growth, in just six thousand years!!!!

Run away! Run away!!!

Well aren't you complacent for a guy who views the Religious Right as the American Taliban.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by look

Well aren't you complacent for a guy who views the Religious Right as the American Taliban.

I doubt that Twin conflates "Islam" with the Taliban.

[look]

For the record, I still have no problem with them. I've explained why already, so won't repeat myself.

[look]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I doubt that Twin conflates "Islam" with the Taliban.

Do you think he equates Islam with religion?

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I doubt that Twin conflates "Islam" with the Taliban.

Excellent point. Thanks.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by look

Do you think he equates Islam with religion?

I don't know how to decode that. The same question could be asked about the Southern Baptist Church. I'd be just as confused.

[Unit]

Originally Posted by jacks_mind

Aren't all hypotheses manufactured? Actually I agree that it is hard to prove but the two sides are on the same epistemological footing. The Austrian also says, "Look, if you just let the free market work we would get out of it faster." Well this hypothesis is just as 'manufactured' as the keynesian one.

You shouldn't be able to also make *my* points and then shoot them down. What I said was that Japan's example does not support fiscal stimulus policies in that they didn't avoid the lost decade. In saying this I don't have to assume any counterfactual scenario.

There is no obvious prima facie empirical evidence that this is the case, so how do you decide between the two.

1) Appeal to authority. Very few economists believe that fiscal policy doesn't help, and fewer buy into the Austrian take on things. Fewer than 1% of economists buy into the do-nothing Austrian idea.

Fiscal policy was completely out of vogue since the 70's high inflation/high unemployment flew in the face of their models. So much so that very little literature was actually produced to study fiscal policy.

2) Theory. It is the simple math that GDP = G + C + I + X - M and even libertarian leaners like Megan Mcardle admit that you can increase GDP when the government spends more. We even can go so far as to perpetually employ these workers in some form of Socialism, I think the theory is very strong on this point.

I wouldn't call this "theory", I'd rather call it mumbo-jumbo. Aggregates in social science are highly dubious, they're just averages over enormous amounts of variation. If you then start to add them, subtract etc...all you're doing is give a patina of "scientism" to your favorite preconceptions.

3) The little empirical evidence we have. The depression is probably the most striking example. Growth almost exactly matched policy. Sure monetary policy played a big (bigger?) role, but it was WWII that got us out of the GD, very much a Keynesian idea.

I see, so in debating the question of whether WWII got us out of the depression, you're somehow allowed to use *your* conclusion as a winning argument?

So if Keynesian stimulus has a justification problem it does so only as much than the much-less justified do-nothing hypothesis. But EVEN IF the stimulus had little effect, it was worth trying at the time to avoid a great depression (yes, even at the cost of 0.8trillion).

EVEN IF it had a *negative* effect? Still worth trying then?

It's completely fine if it only "looks" ok. We know that we wouldn't be making bombs forever, and we know that the government won't be employing so many construction workers forever in the current recession. The private industry will have to take over unless we want to permanently hire these people and increase the government size. The point is which world is better: having numbers that only "look" good, see a small dip as private industry takes over on the road to recovery an then recovery OR languishing at high employment for a long time with industry in a holding pattern and no incentive to hire. I don't mean this to sound as a false choice but only explain why it is completely expected if we are at suboptimal numbers until the private industry takes over. As for Truman, I think you have your history wrong. 1) Truman didn't take office until '46 and 2) the recovery was well underway by that time:

GDP doesn't mean much if it's driven by bomb making and it certainly doesn't prove that there's any multiplier at work. Especially in view of the fact that private consumption picked up only in 46 and 47, i.e. *after* the fiscal stimulus stopped. How can you say that my history is wrong when that's the essence of my argument, i.e. that the economy only recovered after WWII, not during, as the Keynesians claim.

GDP:


Unemployment:
http://www.workbloom.net/wp-content/...depression.gif

To the first point, the Keynesian theory can explain both these plots very well, including the small bump.

The graph you showed me is cut off and doesn't show the trend lines before the Depression and after.

Here you go:
1) Buy some paper towels
2) Multiply that number by 2
3) That's the cost of paper towels 33 years from now
4) That cost increase --> inflation

pretty hard to deny.

Hard to deny what will happen "33 years from now"? How much are you willing to bet? one thousand real dollars?

I agree to some extent; we should have retraining programs. But the idea that the 8 million jobs was exactly equal to bad investments and there was no collateral damage from this 'sector shock',to use an Austrian phrase, (where collateral damage is someone who loses their job that wouldn't have lost their job if there was no bubble) is just absurd. Clearly there is slack in the economy and a decent portion of people should get their jobs back, if companies would only hire.

In fact the secondary effects you mention might very well have been exacerbated by the fiscal stimulus that extract valuable resources from the society at a very critical juncture. A bit like the cockamamie custom of bleeding a patient in ancient medicine.

Seen another way. Here is the housing bubble:

http://www.american.com/graphics/200...r_green_r2.jpg

Where the red line would roughly be "trend-growth" (if there was no bubble).

How do these number affect real GDP (going back to 1995):




You don't really see the bubble here because housing (although the biggest industry) is only 16% of the economy. But we clearly know there was a bubble, but look at the drop in GDP. We have been growing about 2.7% since 1995. So an excess in investment as you say started the bubble, but the resulting decline is so much worse than the sum of initial bad investments.

And for unemployment:



So we agree there was a bubble, but the resulting damage the popping caused cannot in any way, shape, or form be explained by 'malinvestments' alone. There is no reason so many people should be unemployed and we shouldn't be growing at a faster rate. Well I guess there are a reasons, but it has almost nothing to do with previous bad investments or the 'excesses' of the past.

In my view the fiscal stimulus is one of the main reasons we're not growing faster right now.

That is a straw-man. I never said that the government should do everything, only that the free market can't do everything.

What I'm saying is that just because you can point to a few examples of thing govt did and seem to have stuck, it pale in comparisons to the number of innovations that just emerged, and therefore you're not justified in advocating the kind of numbers (in the trillions) that stimulus proponents advocate.

Ok then make the assumption that several companies lobbied hard to get the politicans to act they way they did, wouldn't this be a market failure?

No. There's no market in foreign interventions, the US govt will not fail based on this mistake, no feedback here, no profit versus loss balance, because the lost is entirely borne by taxpayers and foreign nationals. Let me repeat, a "market failure" happens when millions of individuals guided by a free floating price system are led to freely and voluntarily engage in exchanges that make each party of the transaction better off and yet this cause externalities on third parties that are large and difficult to price. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with what people usually call a market failure, but I'm pretty sure that dysfunctional policy outcomes due to lobbying is not one of them.

Ok let me try again. Ignore the word ideal. "Fine, call it what you want, but I'm arguing what you believe is the free-market doesn't exist. Your idea of what the free market is always becomes the 'corrupt' free-market. This 'corrupting' flaw is inherent to the free-market.

Yes but the corrupting force is the existence of govt power: the larger the power, the greater the corruption.

That's fine, I know the free market can do good things, I never said it couldn't. But do you admit that it can produce Enrons independent of government regulation, that this corrupting influence is inherent to a free-market vis-a-vis government central planning?

Again Enron is very bad example for what you want to say because Enron engaged in a lot of rent-seeking.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by look

Well aren't you complacent for a guy who views the Religious Right as the American Taliban.

Me? Complacent? That's a new one.

But no. I will never rest in the battle against ultraconservative extremism, in both its secular and religious forms, whether that means fighting Islamic extremism abroad, or you and your allies in the Republican Party at home. Unfortunately, the immediate threat to American freedom and our way of life comes not from Pakistan or Yemen, but from you and the fascist movement that you enthusiastically promote.

I'll further note that it was the American left alone, by itself, that was condemning the Taliban in the years before 9/11.

Note: Please don't take this personally. I happen to have a lot of friends and family who support the same fascist movement that you do, and I certainly don't hate them.

[look]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Me? Complacent? That's a new one.

But no. I will never rest in the battle against ultraconservative extremism, in both its secular and religious forms, whether that means fighting Islamic extremism abroad, or you and your allies in the Republican Party at home. Unfortunately, the immediate threat to American freedom and our way of life comes not from Pakistan or Yemen, but from you and the fascist movement that you enthusiastically promote.

I'll further note that it was the American left alone, by itself, that was condemning the Taliban in the years before 9/11.

Note: Please don't take this personally. I happen to have a lot of friends and family who support the same fascist movement that you do, and I certainly don't hate them.

TS, you're a pretty nice guy, but I won't be replying to you any longer.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by look

TS, you're a pretty nice guy

Thanks, look. You're pretty nice yourself, as anyone who reads the forum knows. I guess this is what Arendt meant by the banality of evil. In the Confederate South there were all sorts of really nice people. Our nation's founding fathers, whom I revere, were slaveholders and believed in all sorts of things that civilized people consider abhorrent by modern standards. It's one of the enduring mysteries of humanity that really nice, decent people can still stand by and tolerate great evil. Even as you present yourself and charming and friendly in the forum, you're an enthusiastic proponent of one of the most hateful political movements to seize this nation since the dying gasps of white supremacy in the South fought Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. You have no shame about your attitudes about Muslims, and go out of your way to advance the right's most bigoted and hateful narratives. (Remember your smearing of Shirley Sherrod even after it was disclosed that everything Brietbart said about her was a lie?) And yet you're clearly a very nice person. I deal with this every day, living as I do in a small, conservative town: living with kind, decent people who nevertheless support and foster the Republican Party's budding fascism and undiluted hatred of everyone who isn't white and rich. I wish you would examine your soul.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by look

Well, that's what I've been talking about.

Then you've changed the topic from whatit originally was.

I haven't see anyone proposing sharia arbitration in the US, so it seems a bit of an odd thing to focus on, although I'm obviously happy to do so (and thus have addressed the comments about it). It has nothing to do with the kinds of fears and threats being ranted about in connection to the Cordoba Center or other mosques, however, despite the fact that it's often brought up as if it's something quite different in the UK than it actually appears to be.

And the very question is how free Muslim women would be in such courts regarding divorce and forced marriage.

Yes, as I've said from the beginning, that would concern me and I'd need to understand the legal protections involved. (I don't think you need special legal recognition of sharia-related arbitration to pose problems; I think we already have lots of leeway for mediated divorces, which would be influenced by culture, etc.) However, I don't think that this is what the people freaking out about the Muslim threat are talking about, nor do I think it's a valid basis for such reactions. It's simply the kind of problem that gets posed by any closed community in which people are pressured to comply with social standards inconsistent with the rights afforded in the US generally. It's not a problem unique to Islam, and it makes sense to think about it as we do in other such situations.

Since you are a feminst and a lawyer, will you please tell what these safeguards are, and what possible blocks there could be to their implementation.

There are due process requirements that arbitration has to meet before it will be enforced.

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes, because I never implied there would be an attempt to amend laws prohibiting FGM. I suggested that they could be overlooked and excused in the name of multiculturalism and freedom of religion, much in the way Christian Scientists who don't medical help for their children can be excused.

You suggested that this "could" happen and apparently thus is a basis for fear of Muslims, but you haven't stated anything indicating that it's likely to happen, especially not with the approval of the population as a whole or in ways which threaten non-Muslims. Can people break the law and not be discovered? Obviously. Can there be difficulties in enforcing the law in certain insular communities? Again, obviously -- we already have this issue in a variety of ways. Is there something special about Muslims or about "multiculturalism" (which seems to be an effort to suggest that liberals will look the other way or something)? I see no evidence here of that. Thus, again, none of this seems to address the original topic of whether the reaction to Muslims is justified or reasonable. As I said before, one of the best ways to deal with conflicts between US and community values is simply to support the US values -- they tend to be attractive, even if it takes a generation or two. Stigmatizing groups as inherently unamerican seems the worst possible approach if one is hoping to encourage that group to adopt American values.

Thus, I'm continuing to be unclear on what your point is. No, I don't think we have much to worry about and your "what ifs" don't convince me otherwise, but even if that weren't true, you haven't stated what you think we should do in response to these fears.

You mention Britain, but it seems to me that -- despite our various enclaves of groups that elect to remain insular -- we've done well in assimilating groups in comparison with Britain and other European countries, and that, of course, includes Muslims. The approach that the people currently freaking out seem to want -- fear, suspicion, anti mosque building, stigmatizing Muslims as unamerican, claiming Islam is not a religion, drumming up fear of "sharia" (in a way that is inconsistent with the broader usage of the term), and what? I assume this is mainly about immigration, so why not be direct? -- seems to me more likely to backfire and cause us to lose the advantage we've had in assimilation. So when people talk about threat, I think the real threat is what they are bringing about. (Although I don't think even that is much of a threat, as I think the US often gets freaked out by some group or another and then deals as we always have and the new group fits right in. Probably in 50 years the Muslims will just be Republicans and part of the Religious Right like lots of Catholics are.)

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Check out this stunning column by mainstream Republican and Fox News fixture Cal Thomas. He calls Muslims "evil" and openly advocates suspending their Constitutional rights.



(Via/Via)

Can I take a moment to point out how stunningly bad Thomas's Syria comparison is, please? After all, he's suggesting that the government of Syria, which controls a majority-Muslim country and has a history of cooperation with Hezbollah, is monitoring Friday sermons because it knows how dangerous Islam is. Isn't it blindingly obvious that they monitor Friday sermons because Syria is an authoritarian state that's afraid of a religious opposition movement, like the one that exists in Egypt, another majority-Muslim state with an authoritarian government?

[Starwatcher162536]

Funny that immigrants from Pakistan are mentioned. Most of the Pakistanis I have known are people here to pursue secondary education and have a, at least nominally, lower religiosity and a more liberal cultural background then most of the people down here in Texas. I suppose my personal sample could not be representative, but I have yet to run across any backwards Pakistani neighborhoods or been given any evidence from conservatives for why I should be afraid.

[look]

[QUOTE=stephanie;179060]

Then you've changed the topic from whatit originally was.

No, if you'll check post #12, where I came in, my topic was creeping Sharia, not Sharia becoming the law of the land.

I haven't see anyone proposing sharia arbitration in the US, so it seems a bit of an odd thing to focus on, although I'm obviously happy to do so (and thus have addressed the comments about it). It has nothing to do with the kinds of fears and threats being ranted about in connection to the Cordoba Center or other mosques, however, despite the fact that it's often brought up as if it's something quite different in the UK than it actually appears to be.

I reposted harkin's link about Sharia courts in Britain to make the point that such a thing is possible in a multicultural society such as ours.

Yes, as I've said from the beginning, that would concern me and I'd need to understand the legal protections involved. (I don't think you need special legal recognition of sharia-related arbitration to pose problems; I think we already have lots of leeway for mediated divorces, which would be influenced by culture, etc.) However, I don't think that this is what the people freaking out about the Muslim threat are talking about, nor do I think it's a valid basis for such reactions. It's simply the kind of problem that gets posed by any closed community in which people are pressured to comply with social standards inconsistent with the rights afforded in the US generally. It's not a problem unique to Islam, and it makes sense to think about it as we do in other such situations.


There are due process requirements that arbitration has to meet before it will be enforced.

Thanks for these insights.

You suggested that this "could" happen and apparently thus is a basis for fear of Muslims, but you haven't stated anything indicating that it's likely to happen, especially not with the approval of the population as a whole or in ways which threaten non-Muslims. Can people break the law and not be discovered? Obviously. Can there be difficulties in enforcing the law in certain insular communities? Again, obviously -- we already have this issue in a variety of ways. Is there something special about Muslims or about "multiculturalism" (which seems to be an effort to suggest that liberals will look the other way or something)? I see no evidence here of that. Thus, again, none of this seems to address the original topic of whether the reaction to Muslims is justified or reasonable. As I said before, one of the best ways to deal with conflicts between US and community values is simply to support the US values -- they tend to be attractive, even if it takes a generation or two. Stigmatizing groups as inherently unamerican seems the worst possible approach if one is hoping to encourage that group to adopt American values. Thus, I'm continuing to be unclear on what your point is. No, I don't think we have much to worry about and your "what ifs" don't convince me otherwise, but even if that weren't true, you haven't stated what you think we should do in response to these fears.

As I said before, the problem would be for any oppressed women in any insular enclaves, and for any violence threatened for those who would try to interfere. But as you say, hopefully, within a generation or two, there might be assimilation. On the other hand, if freedom of religion will mean freedom to marry your cousin, Sharia enclaves may be more resistant to assimilation.

You mention Britain, but it seems to me that -- despite our various enclaves of groups that elect to remain insular -- we've done well in assimilating groups in comparison with Britain and other European countries, and that, of course, includes Muslims. The approach that the people currently freaking out seem to want -- fear, suspicion, anti mosque building, stigmatizing Muslims as unamerican, claiming Islam is not a religion, drumming up fear of "sharia" (in a way that is inconsistent with the broader usage of the term), and what? I assume this is mainly about immigration, so why not be direct? -- seems to me more likely to backfire and cause us to lose the advantage we've had in assimilation. So when people talk about threat, I think the real threat is what they are bringing about. (Although I don't think even that is much of a threat, as I think the US often gets freaked out by some group or another and then deals as we always have and the new group fits right in. Probably in 50 years the Muslims will just be Republicans and part of the Religious Right like lots of Catholics are.)

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, etc. Do you think bringing these points up in the public debate/freak-out is important in forestalling above-mentioned enclaves, sharia courts, etc.?

...Probably in 50 years the Muslims will just be Republicans and part of the Religious Right like lots of Catholics are.)

Heh.

Originally Posted by stephanie

(Although I don't think even that is much of a threat, as I think the US often gets freaked out by some group or another and then deals as we always have and the new group fits right in. Probably in 50 years the Muslims will just be Republicans and part of the Religious Right like lots of Catholics are.)

A very small % of Catholics can be considered part of the "Religious Right", I have read where maybe something close to 40% consider themselves politically conservative and a much smaller number are straight up and down Rupublican voting. So bottom line they are pretty much just like the general population.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

A very small % of Catholics can be considered part of the "Religious Right", I have read where maybe something close to 40% consider themselves politically conservative and a much smaller number are straight up and down Rupublican voting. So bottom line they are pretty much just like the general population.

Linky?