There's a complicated history behind Saudi Arabia, and many people in Saudi Arabia (especially in the Hejaz, the region home to Mecca and Medina) completely disagree with the puritanical brand of Islam imposed upon them by the House of Saud. 

Extreme Wahhibism is a disgrace to Islam, and the Saudis have long been a controversial force in the Muslim world. The over-the-top monotheism and anti-rational theology characteristic of the Wahhabi movement, not to mention its urge to cut off the modern world and destroy sacred folk shrines, makes it generally unpopular. It doesn't speak for the whole Muslim world.

I would challenge the idea that Christianity and Islam are "mutually exclusive." Exclusionary reasoning leads down ugly paths. For instance, we might argue that Catholicism and Protestantism are "mutually exclusive." Or that Lutheranism and Episcopalianism are "mutually exclusive." Nick Stuart's contention that anyone who accepts the Apostle's Creed is basically on the same page is an arbitrary one. One could also argue that the Eucharist distinguishes "authentic" Christianity from other strands.

The worship of God is a beautiful thing, and it's a perfectly Christian thing to do to open one's doors so that others may worship Him in the manner of their families and ancestors.

For what it's worth, the NYT has a fantastic piece and video about rising violence against Sufi Muslims in Pakistan. Since Pakistan has a rather small non-Muslim population, moderate Muslims are inevitably the target of extremist violence there.

Hans Rosling is the man. Everyone ought to waste 20 minutes or so doodling around his website, Gapminder, which allows you to play with all sorts of different data sets in the same fashion as he does on the video clip above. It's always good to run into an item of media that is so positive about the world (and has the data to back that positivity up!), like this. 

Although I disagree with much of what Steven Pinker has to say, his TED talk about how the world has become a radically more peaceful place over time is a similar pleasure.

Karl, you need to get out more. Say, to Lost Maples State Park in the Hill Country, which looks like this in the fall. Or down to Padre Island (not at spring break), where the weather is almost always favorable. Or to the Chisos Basin during the winter. Even the Texas Panhandle has its charms. 

We prefer to leave most of the hot dirt to southern New Mexico. 

Chalk up Lanny Davis in the same category as the notorious Ramsey Clark, attorney general under LBJ and later legal advocate for such distinguished criminal figures as Nazi war criminals Karl Linnas and Jack Reimer; David Koresh; Liberian president Charles Taylor; Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, one of the prime instigators of genocide in Rwanda; the PLO leaders who killed Leon Klinghoffer aboard the Achille Lauro; Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic of Balkan genocide fame; and, not least, Saddam Hussein, whom Clark defended from charges of genocide by saying, "He had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt." 

All dirty jobs — all jobs that no one (or certainly not a former Attorney General of the United States) had to do. 

For the heck of it, I'll throw a radically contrarian voice into the mix, because it seems this thread is in need of it. Governor Huckabee and Michelle Obama are absolutely correct: there is no question at all that the negative externalities of obesity in this country are a severe problem. Do they require government regulation? It's probably at least worth investigating. At the very least, there's little reason why the First Lady shouldn't be a strong advocate for healthy diets, in the same way that there exists the President's Council on Physical Fitness. 

As serious conservatives, oughtn't we be pushing for ways to reduce public and private expenditures on health care in this country? It would seem that the best way of doing that would be to limit the incidence of heart disease, which (it bears repeating) is the primary cause of premature death in the US. Taxing junk food and encouraging people to eat healthily is as sensible a way to reduce unnecessary costs to society as taxing cigarettes. 

And I'm with KarlUB: end the corn subsidies now. This should be a domestic policy rallying point for the GOP.

I think it's worth stepping to Patrick's defense here. It is not 'covetous' to suggest that the wealthiest 1% of Americans be asked to contribute more to the national coffers in a time of war and a ballooning deficit.

Everyone would agree that punishing rich people through taxation is a bad idea, but I don't think that's the argument Democrats are making. That's an unfair characterization of Obama's position on taxes. Instead, it's the idea that, if government needs to raise revenue, the bulk of that revenue ought to come from those who have done best for themselves in society. We can dispute that argument, but I think it's best to take our opponents at their word, and not assume that they have some Van Jones-type ulterior motives.

Also, the use of scare quotes around 'wealthy' or 'rich' to describe the top 1.5% of households in the US is a bit silly. Households that earn that much are wealthy by almost any definition.

I agree that this Namnam character was someone who needed to be dealt with. But was it really necessary to do it with a car bomb? The Shin Bet's use of the same kind of operational tactics as the terrorists doesn't inspire confidence. Israel has tremendous military and covert capabilities, and it could surely act in a more tactically responsible way than this. Setting off a car bomb to kill a single person comes with a high chance of collateral damage. Four Palestinians were injured in this blast. Those are four Palestinians (+their families) who are now that much less willing to support a peace deal, and that much more willing to harbor terrorists.

What happened to poisoning someone's food? That's a time-honored tactic, with much less potential blowback.

The Canadian: Still convinced he picked the wrong tie for the event; feeling slightly unsure of himself in sharing the stage with the US, France, and Italy.

The American: Resolutely determined to avoid any whiff of Clintonesque behavior while projecting calm detachment.

The Frenchman: "Check out my fabulous heels."

The Italian: "Maybe I could make you a member of my cabinet."

Well, David, Rev. Graham was quoted as saying that Islam is "evil" and "wicked." I would characterize that as "extreme rhetoric," wouldn't you? He goes so in depth as to say, "Especially with Sharia law and what it does for women -- toward women, toward non-believers, the violence that is given in -- under Sharia law."

Does Graham have any idea what he is talking about? Has he ever read works of Muslim jurisprudence? "Sharia" is thrown around as this kind of bogeyman. For one thing, there are so many divisions of Islamic legal thinking, with so many varieties of interpretation, that using "sharia" as a catch-all term is best left for Muslim fundamentalists like Mullah Omar.

Unfortunately, because he jacks up ratings, Graham gets to string together dark mutterings about "sharia" and women on national television, and people actually listen to him.

Michael's point is spot-on. Enlightenment thinking is what dragged us out of the narrow-minded religious bickering that produced such moments as the 30 Years' War, the Crusades, the English Civil War, and many of Europe's other greatest hits. Granted, lingering skirmishes like the Troubles in Ireland continue to plague Western societies even today, but the triumph of secularism stanched much of the carnage characteristic of pre-modern life.

*Parts* of the Muslim world are on their own quest to move into modernity. Many parts are already there (see Turkey, Indonesia, India, Morocco et al). But we ought to strive to proudly uphold the Enlightenment tradition, not wax poetic about the superiority of our own barbaric and medieval past.

Briar Ann, 'sick' is just a synonym for 'great' or 'cool.' They're not casting any aspersions on Allen West's speaking skills.

Diane, thanks for linking to the Young Cons, who are current Dartmouth students and basketball stars. They assure me that they are 'dropping' another video on YouTube very soon.

The thing about this conversation is this: nobody in Washington is seriously discussing seizing everyone's 401(k). For goodness' sake, Congress has proved incapable of making such a slight adjustment to the nation's social safety net as raising the retirement age or raising payroll tax. They're not about to arbitrarily seize people's assets.

There's no reason to go frothing at the mouth over something that is at the remote edges of possibility.

America has real problems that are plenty big and intractable, and that are already at hand. I would like it if discussants on Ricochet focused on the problems we've got, rather than engage in (I daresay) self-indulgent fantasies about the revolution they'll lead once the government takes away their retirement.

That sort of name-calling is way too hostile for a community like this. Murphy generated one of the most spirited conversations in Ricochet's recent memory. I'm sure he's got competing claims on his evening (like, perhaps, sleep. It is past 1 am Eastern time).

Let's keep this civilized.

My position on it is this: we can either deal with the influx of these migrant workers in a responsible and politically agreeable way; or, we can let the situation continue to fester, creating as we do a permanent underclass of illegal Mexican workers who have little to no stake in American society.

One thing that's not an option: "kicking out" illegal immigrants. First, it's not possible; second, it would be politically ridiculous and reputationally ruinous; third, it's completely futile. The 16 million illegal immigrants who are here are here because they have jobs. If it were even possible to deport all illegal aliens, their jobs would have to be filled by......more illegal aliens. The American labor market does not observe the joke of a wall we have erected on the southern border.

So instead, let's create more flexible legal ways for Mexicans to come here for short periods of work; and let's open more spots for citizenship for those who are determined to stay and make their mark on this great land. Otherwise, we'll still be talking about this problem thirty years from now.