First off, it is a bit striking -- if not too surprising -- that my comment that the governor of N.J. should have worn a seatbelt was deemed controversial to a few people. Though I did really touch upon the topic, focusing on the moral obligation of the guy basically, the concern was that mandatory seatbelt laws are a threat to liberty. Note that this is not just your average Joe -- it is a government official on the public payroll. And, yeah, there is logic to the comment of one in response to such concerns that major injury tends to have to be paid for by the public in some fashion.
This was deemed "socialism," a word that really is more scare tactic (the word is based in "society" ... is "society" a problem too?) at any rate. But, it does touch upon something -- those who helped bring Bushies into power often have a broader agenda. Their concerns are deeper, really a dislike of things a vast majority take for granted. The fact some ignore this fact to concern themselves with much lesser similiarities (e.g., those who support Nader because Gore and Bush are "the same") provide a dangerous sort of missing the forest for the trees.
You can get in trouble by trying to "connect the dots" too easily, but ignoring patterns is problematic as well. The prosecutor purge is but one case in point, seen by some as nothing to worry about. Then, we see stories with tidbits like:
The Bush administration was so determined to pursue this phantom scourge that it deported a legal Florida resident back to his native Pakistan for mistakenly filling out a voter registration card when he renewed his driver’s license.
The 'phantom scourge' refers to a related story, linked there, that a commission didn't find a real voting fraud scandal, at least not of the sort certain Republican operatives are pushing, though the medicine for this "disease" is far from painless to the mass of qualified voters. [It rankles too when some of the laws themselves are problematic, like felony disenfrancisement.] The study having a bad conclusion, the Bush Administration had to tone it down. This too is common practice, though one shot examples might let us forget it [e.g., is the Duke prosecutor usually reckless? or only in media laden cases? has this been addressed in any full way?].
Reality of course need not get in the way of policy ... this has happened before now, surely, but we do get loads of examples these days:
Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress. ...
The federal government spends about $176 million a year promoting abstinence until marriage. Critics have repeatedly said they did not believe the programs worked.
Bush administration officials cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the study, saying the four programs were some of the very first established after Congress overhauled the nation’s welfare laws in 1996.
No, the "reality based community" are not usual ones who draw sweeping conclusions from mixed evidence. They are a bit less faith based, shall we say. On the issue, we have a story on how Hispanics who move to this country lose their religion. [Btw, Charles Bell, the NY Daily News religion correspondent is retiring. Good run, guy ... you Saturday columns were appreciated in their coverage of an electic group of religious faiths.] What does this mean really? Is the "American way" often one of "no religion?" Or:
“When people get here they realize that maintaining that pro forma display of religiosity is not essential to doing well.” ...
Like Ms. Lemus, many Hispanics in Richmond said that even though they no longer attended church, their religion remained important to them. This confirms research findings that Hispanics who said they had no religion represent a small subset; many more Hispanics are living rather secular lives but still identify themselves as Catholics or Christians. The phenomenon is similar to that of “cultural Jews,” said Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center.
“You can feel very strongly about the Virgin of Guadalupe and believe your children ought to be baptized, and still not participate in the Catholic Church or make it a major factor in your life,” Mr. Suro said.
As usual, "religion" has a bit of a selective tinge, surely when we keep on hearing that perhaps 90% of the population or more believes in God.