As usual, Mr.Akyol's article is a function of his ideology, not of serious analysis or knowledge of the reality. He likes to boast about how informed he is as opposed to those outdated 'secularist-Kemalist-militarist fundamentalists'. But clearly, Mr.Akyol has no clue whatsoever about debates in Europe about the concept of the welfare state. First of all, there is no one-size-fits-all model of welfare state in Europe. There are many models, which have substantial differences between themselves: the French one, the German one, even within Scandinavia there are different models - the Danish one is not the same as the Swedish.

Second,contrary to Akyol's assertion, some of these models work quite well. For example, both Swedes and Danish have managed to promote private enterprise and maintain high level of welfare. The key is to invest in education and health, for educated and healthy citizens are more likely to be productive and creative economic agents. By boosting education and health-care the state invests in its economic prosperity. It is plainly ridiculous to assert, as Akyol does, that market and faith-based initiatives can be a substitute for this. Finland and Sweden are no less competitive that USA, yet they also have much higher standard of social security. What Akyol does, is in fact just repeating old and bankrupt mantras of American neoconservatives. It would be interesting to know, who are those "others", who "see progress" in these ideas and whom Akyol refers to in the end of his article. May be, he refers to those 70% of Americans who after 8 years of George Bush's "God-inspired" presidency feel their country is on wrong track??

Mr.Akyol is not interested in serious empirical analysis. His chief preoccupation is to promote his ideological agenda. That's why Akyol is among those who try to contaminate Turkey with creationism and other nonsense. And of course, this is why he is so fond of "religion-based charity organisations", who will "take care" of Turkey's poor (and brainwash them in the process). He has every democratic right to advocate his point of view, however ridiculous and harmful it seems to many people. But the rest of us has the same right and even duty to expose Mr.Akyol's views as dangerous fallacy.

Parviz,

Speaking of models, there are a female ones in Europe too.

But seriously, what are the tax rates in Europe to support those welfare states?

And why is there the need for welfare? Are there actually less privileged people waiting for hand outs in Europe too?

Maybe we should call it workfare, or 'get off your butt and get on the bus' fare . . .

Did I hear someone suggest the EU is a failed experiment?

Metin

Speaking of female models, to my knowledge they are also found in abundant numbers in Turkey, not just "Europe")) Isn't that true?

I won't engage in a long dissertation about taxes in Europe, but you can't deny that on the whole Europe is socially much more coherent than the US. Of course, there is no denying that the US model has its advantages. But to say that the EU is "a failed experiment" seems way too far-fetched. If that is so, why would so many countries willing to join it?

Parviz,

For some reason I was analyzing Europe and the EU as two different animals.

For example, Turkey is part of Europe, but will never be part of the EU. And arguably shouldn't.

As for "so many countries willing to join it," some have no choice, some actually haven't, some like to stay in power, some love to be led, and then some others beg as a matter of national pride.

Socially more coherent? Europe? I don't think so. The US still has its morals. And I don't mean that in a non-secularist way...

:)

The US is socially less expensive, more liberated and federated than Europe. We don't have states fighting over who's the best. Germany and England will never give up their nationalist pride of their 'glorious' pasts, while France still acts like their opinion matters.

:)

I can't argue about female models however. But the US has some good ones to offer as well. Collectively, Brazil is still A-OK too.

:)

Just to add to your comments: Nowhere in the developed Western world, including the US, the issue of poverty is left to the mercy of charities. Unfortunately, the Turkish government repeatedly refuses to deal with the issue of poverty in an institutionalized context. Unemployment payments, unemployment aid, and etc. were left out in the latest Social Security Reform. It is apparent that the AKP's policy addresses this issue through charity organizations (those similar to Deniz Feneri and etc.) and informal networks just like in the old days when "wealthy" assisted the "poor" predominantly through religious practices that in my opinion are outdated in developed countries. I also find these practices potentially insulting that benefits the "wealthy" the most. In principle, governments should not leave the well being of the poor citizens at the mercy of pious wealthy. Poverty is a social problem, and must be addressed by the state through prudent social policies and institutions. In terms of social policy, AKP failed miserably, just like the previous governments.

My mother is Turkish (my father is American). We have an apartment in Izmir and a summer house in Cesme, so while I do go back every summer, I spend most of the year in America (We live in Washington, D.C. but I attend school in Philadelphia).

We have Turkish TV in our house but anything I know about the Turkish government, I hear from my mother and my mother's family back in Turkey.

Turkey can be pretty secular at times, but in case the President does try to implement rules like women wearing head scarves, wouldn't it be the military that steps in to stop it? When I was in Cesme, everyone was always talking about how they were scared that Turkey "will turn into the next Iran." Although no one wants to live in a country that is controlled by the military, what guarantees that Turkey won't turn into one of the more Islamic countries? One second we are frolicking on the beaches of Illica, and the next second, we could just as easily have the Clothing Police. Although Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir (as well as other cities) are highly modern, most of the East isn't, and those areas are much more populated.

-Jennifer Ece-

Jennifer,

Our Prime Minister's solution to your (and millions of others') legitimate question was a deceivingly simple one, which I think by the way is a reflection of his intelligence. You must have missed it when you were in the US. He simply said, "trust me".

This idea is revolutionary because it simply renders all institutions, including constitutions, courts and etc. unnecessary. "simplicity is a reflection of perfection," and Mr. Erdogan should be very happy with his answer. We have one person who will do all the checks and balances. See, isn't that revolutionary? How silly of Jefferson, Hamilton and Jay to separate them. It must be a lot of work on the part of the US political system.

Lets not forget about the message Mr. Erdogan sends to every democratic regime in the world. Who needs institutions when you have such as trustworthy leader?

In case something goes wrong, lets say if he is not in power anymore for any reason, then you have other highly sophisticated mechanisms to protect your rights, including converting to Islam. Dont you already feel better?

Hello.
:)

Martha Louise, who is the only daughter of King Harald and Queen Sonja, gave up the title of 'royal highness' upon her 2002 marriage to writer Ari, and has a reputation for not standing on ceremony.
Bye.