Maggie's Farm

The answer has to do with a critical shift in the Republicans' governing strategy, dating to the late 1990s. From 1981 through 1998, Republican reformers' thinking was dominated by Dave Stockman (President Reagan's first budget director) and Newt Gingrich (the reform-minded House speaker of 1995 to '98). Both were movement politicians who believed that, by cutting spending, Republicans could build prosperity, tame Big Government, and win majority status.

The trouble was that budget cuts brought short-term political backlashes that kept interrupting the program. Burned by President Clinton in 1995-96 and then spanked by voters in 1998, Republicans decided to reverse the sequence. First they would build a political machine; then, once safely entrenched, they would reform Social Security and Medicare, shrink government, and so on. The new course was set by DeLay and Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist -- both machine-builders par excellence.

And so, under DeLay and Bush, the Republicans spent generously, even profusely, to build their base. The number of budgetary earmarks increased from 2,100 in 1998 to 14,000 in 2005, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. To disarm the Democrats, the Republicans gave up on reducing entitlement spending and instead dramatically increased it, notably with an expensive new prescription drug program. (According to Richard Kogan, a senior fellow with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Republicans have added $540 billion to entitlement costs over the 2001-to-2011 period.) They cut taxes and spent heavily on the Iraq war and defense. (Real spending on defense and security has risen by more than 7 percent a year since 2001, Kogan says.)

When, last year, DeLay blurted out that the budget had no fat left, he meant that it had no political fat, and he was right. Every dollar now served a constituent group in DeLay's carefully built machine. Phase one had worked. In 2005, with Bush safely re-elected and their congressional majorities cemented, Republicans launched phase two: a reform effort aimed at Social Security.

Then came a shock. Social Security reform collapsed and spending proved all but intractable, both for the same reason: Large-scale reform needs a popular majority, not just a parliamentary one, and Republicans constitute only a third of the country. In building their machine, the Republicans had made Democrats hostile and independents suspicious, and the support that remained was far from enough.

Bush is no Reagan, nor did he ever have the kind of mandate for change that Reagan enjoyed. After all, Clinton did hold to - or was held to -meaningful fiscal discipline, which is part of why he was popular among financial types. Read entire.

Jim Pinkerton has a straight-forward thesis at TCS about the formation of regional religio-cultural blocs around the world - the Western/Christian, the Chinese/Confucian, the Indian, etc. The caliphate aspires to be one of them. A quote:

So regional blocs, based on a common characteristic, such as religious and cultural ancestry, are naturally powerful. And of course, if one country is the leader of such a bloc, it doesn’t want a rival within that bloc to emerge -- and thus it can’t be displeasing to American strategists that the European Union is foundering. Just as Europeans were once eager to keep the rest of the world divided, so we should not lament the failure of a Brussels-based superstate to emerge as much more than a costly red-tape dispenser. America is effectively unchallenged within the Christian Bloc.

But there’s a problem dead ahead: As we look around the world, we can see that other countries are forming blocs of their own, too. China, for example, is pulling together a Confucian bloc in East Asia. The People’s Republic is an empire of its own, people-wise and territory-wise, but it is now using its longer and longer politico-economic hook to reel in as many of its neighbors as it can.

It makes sense. And, as I see it, it's a post-imperial development, since it is no longer necessary to "own" another nation to make money trading with it. It's the new version of Ye Olde Power Game. Read the whole thing here.

For Libertarians and traditional conservatives, any expansion of power by any of the three branches of government is seen as a threat to freedom.

And both would agree that the main threat to freedom is not specifically an imperial presidency, but an imperial Federal Government - a condition which Leftists and Democrats have pursued since FDR. Why a threat? Because it is too far from the people, too far from local daily life, and too arrogant.

When it comes to the national defense, however, things are different. Libertarians and conservatives tend to view national defense as one of the genuine constitutional functions of the Feds, while the Liberals seek to de-fang America for reasons of their own. It's the one area in which they wish to see the Federal Govt weakened.

I happen to believe that anything Bush has done to monitor cell calls was a good idea, and that he would have been tarred and feathered and chased out of the country if he had neglected such a basic defensive tactic. And has nothing to do with tyranny. And any liberal brouhaha about it is pure opportunistic partisanship, hysterical scare tactics, and a pile of BS - which they know but won't admit. Because were they in power, they would have done the same thing. Al Gore wants to be Secretary of State. Or any paying job - he's been living off his inheritance and tobacco farm and trust fund - right? No manly pride in that. Too similar to Ted the Swimmer.

Paul Craig Roberts has written a thoughtful but, in the end, hysterical piece on this subject here.  Off this point, but along the same lines, our Yankee neighbor Tom Bowler clarifies some political differences here.

From a post by Bill Quick on the future of the political parties:

We still have three classes, but they are vastly different from the Marxian concept. We have a producing class, a consuming class, and a political class. There are overlaps, of course, and much movement from one to the other, but, in general, the three divisions work. I suspect my readers will find my enshrinement of politicians into a class all their own to be the most surprising, but what else can you call it? More than 21 million people are employed by government at all levels in the US, by far the single biggest classification of employment in this country. Government workers comprise about 15 percent of the total work force, and exert a significant effect on the political culture of the nation as a whole. The reason for this is simple: Government workers neither produce nor consume in any sense relevant to classical notions of capitalism. Every penny they "earn" is taken from the pockets of those who actually produce things. Every penney they spend returns to those pockets. Their "consumption" is perfectly balanced by their "production," and hence, like corporate taxes, they are an artifact that exists only in a theoretical sense.

Yet this shell game permits them a lifestyle in general better than any similar group of their counterparts in private industry, and so their deeply vested interest is in the continuation of the state, and is, hence, a political interest. They are the political class to a far greater and more meaningful extent than those who dabble in politics for reasons of ideology. Further, some segments of the political class - and not just elected politicans - are beginning to show one of the historical markers of any class - their class status is becoming hereditary.

Read the whole thing at Daily Pundit. (his links weren't working so you must scroll down.)

Corporate Lessons

Corporate Lesson 1 -

A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower when the doorbell rings. The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs
downstairs. When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next door neighbor. Before she says a word, Bob says, "I'll give you $800 to drop that towel." After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob. After a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 dollars and leaves. The woman wraps back up in the towel and goes back upstairs. When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, "Who was that?" "It was Bob, the next door neighbor," she replies. "Great!" the husband says, "Did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?"

Moral of the story: If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time, you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.
---------------------------------------------------
Corporate Lesson 2 -

A priest offered a lift to a Nun. She got in and crossed her legs, forcing her gown to reveal a leg. The priest nearly had an accident. After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg. The nun said,  "Father, remember Psalm 129?" The priest removed his hand. But, changing gears, he let his hand slide up her leg again.  The nun once again said, "Father, remember Psalm 129?" The priest apologized. "Sorry sister but the flesh is weak." Arriving at the convent, the nun went on her
way. On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to look up Psalm 129. It said, "Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory."

Moral of the story: If you are not well informed in your job, you might miss a great opportunity.
----------------------------------------------------
Corporate Lesson 3 -

A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp. They rub it and a Genie comes out. The Genie says, "I'll give each of you just one wish." "Me first! Me first!" says the admin. clerk. "I want to be in the Bahamas, driving a speedboat,
without a care in the world." Poof! She's gone. "Me next! Me next!" says the sales rep. "I want to be inHawaii, relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina Coladas and the love of my life." Poof! He's gone. "OK, you're up," the Genie says to the manager. The manager says, "I want those two back in the office after lunch."

Moral of the story:  Always let your boss have the first say.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Lesson 4 -

A crow was sitting on a tree, doing nothing all day. A rabbit asked him, "Can I also sit like you and do nothing all day long?" The crow answered: "Sure, why not." So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the crow, and rested.   A fox jumped on the rabbit and ate it.

Moral of the story:  To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very high up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Lesson 5 -

A turkey was chatting with a bull. "I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree," sighed the turkey, "but I haven't got the energy." "Well, why don't you nibble on my droppings?" replied the bull. "They're packed with nutrients." The turkey pecked at a lump of dung and found that it gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.  Finally after a fourth night, there he was proudly perched at the top of the tree. Soon he was spotted by a farmer, who shot the turkey out of the tree.

Moral of the story:  Bullshit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.

Get Used to Loony Partisanship

Between the behavior of the senators at the "Alito-McCarthy" hearings, and this report of the NYT's encouraging and approving attitude towards Clinton's wiretapping program, it is finally time to announce that we are officially in election season.

Of course it began with Bush's Katrina, ran through the NYT's sudden change of heart about wiretapping, and very recently Bush's mine safety failure.

From now on, ANYTHING bad that happens is a Bush-Repub failure. The most wacked fantasies of Blame Bush will be realized. Anything good that happens will be ignored (eg the booming economy, the successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the absence of terror attacks in the US, the spread of freedom around the world).

The MSM, especially the NYT and LAT, and the Globe are all obviously on board for "regime change."

With the MSM providing the dark bass line and the ominous background beat, the Dem politicans and pundits will pound the tune incessantly: Repubs are scary because ____. Repubs don't care about people or children because ____. Repubs are evil because ______. The whole purpose of the Alito hearings was to repeat these themes on TV.

"Silly season" has begun. Take it all with a grain of salt, or your blood pressure and migraine problems will rapidly worsen. For your health, here's a good place to start: Cancel your NYT, LAT, Boston Globe - and give up on TV "news." Trust the blogs.

NY Times Loved Clinton's Wiretaps. Hmmmm.

From American Thinker:

"The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.”"

Enough said? More tomorrow.

By Lt.Col. (ret.) Dave Grossman, Army Ranger, psychology professor, author of "On Killing" and the upcoming "On Combat".

"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy  things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?" - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997. 

A Pattern of Suicidality from the NYT (and the Left in general)

This time, about Avian Flu. A quote from an excellent and well-researched piece by Miller at TCS:

"It is not surprising, therefore, that commentaries about avian flu often miss the mark. For example, a New York Times editorial, “The Flu Moat,” decried wealthy countries’ “me, first” attitude toward a possible pandemic of H5N1 avian flu, because “[t]he best hope of stopping a pandemic, or at least buying time to respond, is to improve surveillance and health practices in East Africa and Asia, where one would probably begin.” "

Great idea. Let's get the US and the UN to reconstruct Asian civilization from the ground up, before we worry about the bird flu! No doubt our tender concern would be welcomed with open arms.

The NYT, echoing the societal-suicide themes of the Left, feels compelled to adopt a passive stance towards threats of all sorts. The Left wanted to stay out of WW2 until Germany invaded their precious totalitarian Russia. It was "Better Red than Dead" and "Ban the Bomb" during the Cold War. With crime, it was "root causes" not enforcement. With terror, we get the "root causes" thing again - good idea - let's offer Al Zarquawi free therapy. Do I hear "Better Islamic than Dead" yet? And guns in the house? Forget it - "guns go boom." With immigration, it's "don't enforce the law." With Al Quaida wiretaps, it's "Let's stop wiretapping terrorists." I could go on and on. And it always turns out to be wrong.

Perhaps Americans should all just do a Jim Jones deal, or march cheerfully into the gas chamber?

What is this remarkably consistent pattern of self-destructive passivity in the face of danger all about? People used to talk about "liberal guilt" (the psychotically grandiose and/or solipsistic notion that everything is ultimately our fault),  and maybe it is that for some people. More commonly today, people talk about "liberal anger": an anger coming from God knows where which is self-directed. Some shrinks think it comes from a "fraidy cat" mentality. Our Maggie's Farm Analyst generously opines that it is about "denial." Others, like Horowitz (who ought to know) assert that the Left contains an anarchistic impulse, deriving from the fantasy that The Revolution will be more quickly born out of chaos than by the stepwise stealthy method that has been going on since the 1930s. 

My feeling is that a society that doesn't have the confidence or the will to confront and address dangers to its well-being and traditions doesn't deserve to survive. But we do. I am in favor of walls, moats, guns - whatever it takes.

The Suicide Theme

Kimball, in a New Criterion piece entitled "After the Suicide of the West":

"The terrorist attacks of 9/11 gave us a vivid reminder—but one, alas, that seems to have faded from the attention of many Western commentators who seem more concerned about recreational facilities at Guantanamo Bay than the future of their towns and cities. For myself, ever since 9/11, when I think about threats to democracy, I recall a statement by one Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah leader, which I believe I first read in one of Mark Steyn’s columns. “We are not fighting,” Mr. Massawi said, “so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.” "

His piece is the intro for a series on culture wars, here.

And Sowell, "Serious or Suicidal?", on the world's view of Iran and their nukes.

Wise Man of Wall St.

Barton Biggs, longtime wise man at Morgan Stanley (and known to be a perpetual Bear), but more recently in the hedge fund business, has written a book: Hedgehogging. It comes out next week, but folks I know who have read advance copies say it's a very fine and entertaining inside look at the fantastically lucrative Wild West hedgie world.

Political Warfare

As we have said on these pages in the past, presidential politics is open warfare, and has been at least since Watergate, when a fine President with some personal flaws (as they all have) was brought down for essentially trivial reasons which did not justify undoing an election. In fact, if Nixon had only had the balls to say, in the beginning, "We screwed up," the whole thing would have blown away in a few weeks.

I believe in the concept of "loyal opposition." I thought it was wrong to go after Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton in the vicious, disrepectful, and blood-thirsty ways in which they were hounded - always searching for the scandal that would either destroy them or handcuff them. (Nobody bothered going after Carter except for the attack rabbit. Bush Sr. took a lot of gratuitous hits from the press, but the opposition did not seem determined to destroy him.)

With GW, as with Reagan, we see the opposition, with their leftist bedfellows in the press, frothing at the mouth. Let's see how many trumped-up and invented "scandals" Bush has endured: 1. He really lost Florida. 2. He really lost Ohio. 3. He caused Abu Graib. 4. He lied about Iraq so his friends could make oil money. 5. He caused Katrina to kill blacks. 6. He spies on innocent Americans.  How many have I missed?

These are all calculated, opportunistic, and dishonest assaults, hoping to cause damage or to draw enough blood to attract the sharks. It's the wrong thing to do, and the "concern" is as transparently feigned and phony as can be. These president guys mean well for the country. They are normal humans, but they mean well (insofar as any politicans mean well, anyway).

I am no lawyer, but I have read the legal analyses of the NSA thing. My conclusion is that if the NSA and the CIA were not secretly monitoring foreign calls to potential terrorists, that might be cause for impeachment. That would be a true scandal. Given how easy it is to be on American soil, and how easy it is to become a citizen (far too easy for this amazing privilege, if you ask me), our spooks had better be looking for them and watching them, because there are guys out there who want nothing more than to kill you and me.

How quickly we sink into our decadent complacency.

Where's the Outrage?

Religious Left Marches in Protest of Budget Cuts. But I thought religion and politics shouldn't mix? No, no, I see, I got it wrong. I misunderstood. I was being a bit too literal. Collectivist Christians good; individualist Christians bad. Now do I get it?

What I would say to these marchers is "DONATE." It's that time of year. Donate the $ you wish the city had taken from you, to the city govt or to your favorite charity. That's what Red Staters do. That's what caring people do.

When it's voluntary, it means much more, and is far more satisfying.

Comments on Prior Post

Our reliable and always enjoyable youthful News Junkie posted this link early this morning:

Georgetown and Harvard accept 20 million dollar bribes from Saudi. "For understanding." I think we already understand enough.  NYT . For me, the real question is "Do the moslems understand us yet?"

Good point, but beside the point at hand. The point at hand is what the great universities will take money for. When Yale turned down the Lee Bass donation for study of Western civilization, I was "mugged by reality," and convinced that academia was truly a scurrilous operation.

So here we find our great universities taking money to "understand" moslems, and refusing money to understand ourselves and our own civilization and culture. What's wrong with this picture?

New Math

This piece has been circulating for a while:

Last week I purchased a salad at McDonalds for $3.58. The counter girl took my $4.00 and I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies. While looking at the
screen on her register, I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried.

Why do I tell you this? Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:

Teaching Math In 1950 

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1960 

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80.  What is his profit?
 
Teaching Math In 1970

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80.  Did he make a profit?

Teaching Math In 1980 
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20  Your assignment:  Underline the number 20.
 
Teaching Math In 1990 
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands.  He does this so he can make a profit of
$20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question:  How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.) 

Teaching Math In 2005
Un ranchero vende una carretera de madera para $100. El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Cuantos tortillas se puede comprar?

Why The War is a Good Idea

Baker in The Times Online, describes the two main ingredients of the politics that are swirling around the War. First, the old familiar political gotcha games in an effort to embarass or injure the Administration, and, second, the high risk for the Dems that Iraq may be a stunning success - if it isn't already, despite the mad bombers. Baker:

"In a couple of weeks, Iraqis will go to the polls in their millions for the third time this year (the exercise of democracy can be habit-forming, can’t it?). This time they will choose a government that will have real power over the direction of the country. It will be a genuine first in the history of a region where medievalist tyranny has enjoyed five centuries of extra time.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein, the most powerful living expression of that legacy, the tormentor of his own people and oppressor of others, stands trial for his crimes.

And the success in Iraq, intangible as it is, was never just going to be confined to the country itself. Look at the broader map of the Middle East."

Yes, look at the map. What if this all turns out extremely well, in the end? It might. Read Baker's entire piece here. 

Belmont Club puts it better than I can:

"So it's true. Iraq is Vietnam and soon the 21st century version of the Carter era will dawn. Isn't that something to look forward to? Wait. The Iraq story: how troops see it from the Christian Science Monitor tells a diametrically different story. But that means nothing because 'public opinion' has made its mind up: Iraq is a catastrophic defeat. In fact, Martin Van Creveld says it is the worst military defeat in 2014 years, beside which Agincourt, the Retreat from Kabul, Waterloo, the Sedan, the Fall of France, Stalingrad -- all fade into insignificance. So who's coming forward to take the surrender, which is what customarily happens when one side is beaten by another?"

Read the whole thing. The fact is, the Dems and the Left hope Iraq is worse than Waterloo, because they want to win an election, and because they like to see the Evil US weakened and humiliated. But thinking it, and repeating it in print, doesn't make it so. Therefore, as freedom advances in Iraq and in the middle east, we will see the voices of the Left become more shrill, negative, defeatist - and desperate.

"Towards Europe?"

That's the title of a Barone piece this week, in which he provides an optimistic overview of the extent to which the US is not moving in the direction of European-style welfare statism, (which I think of as a modern-day feudalism). While we all enjoy mocking the ways busy-body government chips away at liberty by telling us where we can smoke, making us wear seat-belts, banning fox hunting, restricting our gun rights, etc., it is the Nanny State that is the greater threat to freedom, initiative, and personal autonomy by trading human spirit and vitality for security and safety. A quote:

"The Bush administration came into office with plans to get us off the European trajectory, and has had partial success. At the moment, it seems inclined to let the Republican Congress set the course on domestic policy, which means letting the workings of regulated private markets in pensions and health care determine our direction. Democrats would like to move us some distance toward Europe, but how far they neither say nor, so far as I can tell, know. The Bush years have not produced a crisp decision to get off the European trajectory. But they have produced some significant movement in that direction, notwithstanding narrow Republican congressional majorities and harsh partisan divisions."

Read the whole thing. 

The 787

The "Dreamliner", the replacement for the Boeing 777, looks like a darn nice bus, and I look forward to flying on it. Several human features: higher humidity, so you don't arrive dehydrated; better pressurization (most commercial airplanes are pressurized to an equivalent of 7000' in altitude; this will be closer to 4000); more seat room in cabin class; bigger windows; an 8500 mile range and, I have heard, no recycled air (if the engineers can solve the problem of the half knot per hour speed loss which this seems to entail). I just hope the bathrooms are better - and cleaner. Alas, no swimming pool or Jacuzzi, and no place to enjoy a cigar - even in First Class. You still have to stroll out on the wing for that.

Visiting NYC this season?

It seems as if a lot of bloggers have been visiting NYC lately. Good. New York does Christmastime well.  Maggie's has been very clear that we enormously appreciate the Renaissance of NYC as it has occurred under the hands of Rudy Guiliani and Michael Bloomberg.

We posted some NYC travel tips last April, and we have recently noted the Fra Angelico show at the Met.

Another tip - Jersey Boys, on Broadway. The story of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons. Fine music - better than The Four Seasons ever were, I am told.

Don't forget to consider Fraunce's Tavern (since 1762) for dinner, way downtown, where Washington delivered his farewell address to his troops back when mid-town NYC was farms and woods. Consider Peter Luger Steak House (since 1887) too. Remember - dining in NYC means reservations.

Image of Fraunce's Tavern.

Poitiers, Redux

Steyn:

"The French have been here before, of course. Seven-thirty-two. Not 7:32 Paris time, which is when the nightly Citroen-torching begins, but 732 A.D. -- as in one and a third millennia ago. By then, the Muslims had advanced a thousand miles north of Gibraltar to control Spain and southern France up to the banks of the Loire. In October 732, the Moorish general Abd al-Rahman and his Muslim army were not exactly at the gates of Paris, but they were within 200 miles, just south of the great Frankish shrine of St. Martin of Tours. Somewhere on the road between Poitiers and Tours, they met a Frankish force and, unlike other Christian armies in Europe, this one held its ground ''like a wall . . . a firm glacial mass,'' as the Chronicle of Isidore puts it. A week later, Abd al-Rahman was dead, the Muslims were heading south, and the French general, Charles, had earned himself the surname ''Martel'' -- or ''the Hammer.''

Poitiers was the high-water point of the Muslim tide in western Europe. It was an opportunistic raid by the Moors, but if they'd won, they'd have found it hard to resist pushing on to Paris, to the Rhine and beyond. ''Perhaps,'' wrote Edward Gibbon in The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, ''the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.'' There would be no Christian Europe. The Anglo-Celts who settled North America would have been Muslim. Poitiers, said Gibbon, was ''an encounter which would change the history of the whole world.''

Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman."

Read entire.

Roberts on Business Responsibility

An excerpt from Russell Roberts:

"...She wanted to know if I thought the soft values should count, meaning, the virtue of keeping 100 families happy and intact or should you just go for the jugular and maximize profits.

I gave her a few answers.  One of them was one that I give in my book, The Invisible Heart.  It's OK to be charitable with your own money.  It's not so virtuous to be generous with other people's money.  A publicly traded business should maximize profits and let shareholders be charitable with those returns if they so choose.  I also gave the other answer I gave in the book—that there is no such thing as "enough" profit.  The world is highly uncertain and sacrificing profits in the name of "soft values" may end up destroying the company and putting everyone out of work."

Read entire at Cafe Hayek.

Second Class Minds

Samizdata with some P. J. O'Rourke on David Cameron:

The guy obviously doesn't understand the fundamental truth about politics, which is that the best minds only produce disasters. Scientists, for example, are famously idiots when it comes to politics. I agree with Friedrich Hayek, who said in The Road to Serfdom that the "worst imaginable world would be one in which the leading expert in each field had total control over it".

Just once, I'd love to hear a politician say: "We're going to bring the second-best minds together to work on this." The second-best minds are all much more practical people than the first-class guys. More importantly, they are not going to try to do anything very much.

Read entire.

Dangerous Disciples

An interesting prayer of Jesus for his disciples throughout time; lines 16-18 really capture it:

NRSV John 17:11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and I speak these things in the world so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 15 I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. 16 They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

Read Brian's comments regarding this prayer, and discipleship, here.

American Exceptionalism

Yes, I have thought it through several times and I do believe in it. Prager on the subject:

"...as in nearly every other area of the Left-Right, blue-red divide in America, the attitude one has toward American exceptionalism ultimately lies in whether or not one wants America's values to remain Judeo-Christian."

Read entire.