I like that, too. It's clever.

Kids' dreams are, however, exactly my issue. His biographies suggest that Dr. King's dreams began nearer to the end of his school career than at the beginning, so the question remains: why would we honor Dr. King's dreams and his actions by intentionally being less active and less studious?

Comment removed after reading Williamson's whole article. 

If you responded to me, sorry. I've decided not to participate in this discussion for now.

It is very sad to see a scientist dismayed by skepticism. I haven't met a lot of scientists, but those I've met were skeptics as a matter of pride and profession.

Isn't it also a commentary on the collective image we Americans have around the world that he expected us to follow Science's lead like sheep (or lemmings)? Has this guy ever BEEN to America? Most of us are followers (sadly), but not all. Is that what dismays him? Independent thinking, or people who decide to believe those who think independently? A man of Science discovers that some people disagree with him, ergo their heads must be buried in sand?

Yikes. 

It's also sad and sadly nothing new to see a man of Science duped by radicals and their "movements." I wonder if he understands what will happen to him if any of those radicals become powerful in his own sphere? He'll welcome them as evidence of people gaining greater influence in how they live, and then, sometime later, he'll realize that what happened: certain people gained new influence over they way he lives. 

Yikes again.

Lege, explora, cogita. Quaere verum.

I define the term "house" to mean people who have united themselves under mutual promises, divided against itself to mean a condition in which part of the membership has set a course that intends its destruction, and to stand to mean to fulfill internal and external commitments.

We revisit Lincoln's Springfield Senate speech; we again debate slavery. The issue then was the enslavement of people whose forebears had come to our continent against their will, to do work of others' choosing, without freedom to negotiate terms of their service.

Today, we face a new issue: the enslavement of our children and grandchildren so that today's adults may postpone vital decisions about the nation's finances and the role of government in citizens' lives. More is at stake, today, however: not only has this government made internal promises that are manifestly inoperative, it has also obligated itself to people around the world by practice and contract to stand for freedom, particularly for Europe, Israel, and Taiwan, who live in the shadows of formidable and oppressive enemies. If those promises are inoperative then our divisions may lead to war around the world.

Our house must stand. Where is our Lincoln?

The election is the most important if you believe as many do that it will be the last. Most of us agree with you that it won't; I also happen to agree with Kevin Williamson that there is no support in the electorate for cutting spending on the scale that we need; therefore, I anticipate at least four more years of ridiculous spending regardless of the outcome.

Is unfathomable optimism a symptom of RINO squishiness? I think it is. McCain refused to say that we ought to fear an Obama presidency -- but we had much to fear from his service, both directly and in the indirect consequences of a decline encouraged by its most influential input (leadership or the opposite thereof). 

You've got a point about innovation continuing under all sorts of circumstances, except that you give no information about which marginal tax rates applied to the innovators and their investors. A lot of rich people and corporations find ways to avoid paying high taxes when they're in effect -- did strategies like this protect the capital that supported the cited innovations? 

If we survive, your optimism will not have been much comfort. 

When will we thrive again?

Like us, Tolkien was profoundly saddened by the growing power of the bureaucratic and industrial state. This sadness grows out of the regrettable loss of natural wisdom embedded in a culture.

Gandalf defends the keeper of the Prancing Pony in Bree against a charge of stupidity, claiming in the face of rather strong evidence to the contrary that he is wise enough on his own ground.

Gandalf also chides Theoden for discounting the value and wisdom found in old wives' tales.

Gandalf also finds wisdom in the ramblings of an old apothecary's assistant in Minas Tirith at the conclusion of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields when she recalls that the King could always be known in the past by his ability to heal.

Tolkien valued wisdom over intelligence and honest labor over the application of machines. He was a nature-lover, not an environmentalist.

The greatest wisdom passed on via Middle Earth is a sadness at the separation of art and reason in our modern world. Tolkien's elf-magic is intended as a re-marriage of art and reason.

On a personal note: more Tolkien posts! Every day we march on into oblivion proves his prescience! 

Please don't watch the movies! Please read the books! Especially with your kids! If you need visuals, there is a huge body of Tolkien-inspired art out there, including the Master's own drawings and paintings. Many of these are the foundations of Peter Jackson's astounding scene work. Sadly, Peter Jackson butchered some of the story's most important themes and characters to keep the movie under twelve hours. 

Tolkien did not intend any correspondences between his story's characters and plot elements and any real historical event -- not a single one. He makes this clear in a letter to his publisher which is included in new editions of LOTR.

The most important application of Tolkien to today happens in the last conflict of the War of the Ring, which Jackson cuts completely from the movies. The hobbits rid themselves of an industrial regime and its confounding labyrinth of rules and oppression of commerce and free speech. 

Tolkien held industrial technology beyond the comprehension of a person with common sense to be at best innocuously seductive -- he considered such contraptions and their efficiencies to be as insidiously evil (and as seductive) as Sauron's relentless quest for power.

duplicate post

You may believe this, Peter. Treat your movies where people run from dinosaurs as documentaries, too.

I believe that Obama will serve two terms. If Black is holding out for a white knight, then we are desperate.

Does America's system produce well-timed Solons? FDR? Lincoln did step up. Reagan in his way and to his ability. Not Wilson. Not Kennedy. Coolidge was great but people like him don't run any more.

The last time America's finances were this bad, weren't we coming out of a revolution into what most observers felt would be a short, nasty rivalry with Britain before the Mother country reabsorbed us? She wouldn't have us now -- and we don't have a crop of leaders of that caliber to make it work. 

I hope that I will be surprised by next November's result -- but I am determined not to be surprised by the current occupant of the Oval Office retaining his seat. The GOP has retired from the field. The damage he does accrues to the Republican Party, which, for the second time in five years, may fail to oppose a destructive-American in his quest for executive power.

Mickey Mouse Clubhouse -- a good math show for the little ones. Your Dad will perceive the math/problem-solving lesson plans, while Leo will fall in love with at least one of the traditional characters, probably Goofy, but you never know. My older daughter's (2+) first crush was on Donald Duck, particularly after he threw a tantrum that defeated a severe case of hiccups. The trick is that you need to DVR the show ... NOW! It's on once this morning and that's it ... or you can pull up two or three free full episodes (commercial free) at the disney junior web site. My littler one (9mos) is also a huge fan: she dances right along with Mickey and Minnie throughout the show.

I'm a math teacher, and I approve this TV show (it's a very, very, very short list -- TV is for news or sports, IMNSHO).

I really enjoyed this. It brings home the fact that far too many of us are expecting the good graces of our fellow citizens to extend to supporting us in profligate lifestyles. 

Contrast this with Obama's efforts at channeling TR today a couple of hours from here -- I felt a powerful disturbance in the Schwartz.

Perhaps the best part -- Klavan doesn't guarantee any prosperity or happiness or transformationally change-oriented metamorphic gobbledygook. You play by the rules, you work hard, and that's just better than stealing from your fellow citizens. The seas may still rise, the world will still be a difficult place, but at least we'll all be working for our own good and taking our own risks with our own money. 

I am so sick of things being evaluated according to pie-in-the-sky extrapolations of completely ridiculous constructs like the "multiplier" effect or a "hockey-stick" chart. 

I hope Mr. Klavan is back on the beat here at Ricochet and elsewhere for a while. I missed him very much while he finished his writing projects.

I love the Professor in this venue. Does the other side have a worthy questioner or opponent? Like every other sports fan, I like watching my team beat down an outmanned opponent once in a while -- but what I would love most is to have Prof. Epstein or our other worthies enter the arena against their counterparts on the left. 

Who would you most like to see the good Professor debate on the left? Who on that side could give him a significant competition?

Kudos to the Prof, and thank you Peter for the link and tweet (actually got the word from you on Twitter).

A wonderful dessert after delighting in the entree Podcast.

;-)

I'm afraid I must expel you from the ranks of ex-neocons into which you have artificially insinuated yourself in shamelessly plugging your podcast (of which we approve -- both of the shamelessness and of the plugging -- we reserve judgment on the podcast to its full hearing).

One of the application boxes you must check -- without hanging chads of the kind you left in your post -- is that you were at one time a neocon.

To reiterate, sir, if you wish to be admitted to the august fraternity of ex-neocons, you must be able to state decisively that you were at one time -- prior to your application -- a neocon.

Sincerely and with best wishes. ;-)

This belief that all is possible -- that humans can wield God-like power for themselves -- dates back to the story of the Fall of Man early in Genesis. Eve hears from the serpent that she and Adam might be like gods and believes that it is worthwhile to disobey God to attain that.

Every instance where humans take control over the act of creating life is an equivalent error, a violation of the ultimate natural law: "Accept what you are." We don't descend to or below the level of animals, we simply steep ourselves in sinful arrogance.

I don't know that animals are capable of being that sinful, but once God has given dominion or has chosen His people, I believe that he never rescinds those gifts.

Very interesting topic with a lot of compelling side trips.

EJ Hill: I'm with Hitch. Most atheists hold their views boldly and honestly and so should Christians, Jews and Muslims. As long as nobody crosses that line of forcing one's practice on another or committing acts of violence, conviction should be seen as a positive driving force.

Problem: It appears to many who read a certain text that God exhorts the faithful to violence. If adherents to this version of that religion hold their views boldly and honestly, then they will be violent to a deadly extent so as to be observant, reverent, and submissive. I am not prepared at this time to identify that religion or its text boldly and honestly, as this version of that religion also appears to reject freedom of speech and freedom of religion -- but I bet you can guess ...

I'm just sayin'. 

Not to let Mr. Hitchens off the hook: I enjoy the Joycean version of the Hell lesson from Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. I'm sure you will, too.

;-)

Brandon Zeffini motivated this comment with his first:

Among Professor Rahe's premises are:

Ryan or Daniels is ripe to lead and can win.

The security and integrity of American families depends on the security and integrity of the USA.

He concludes that these men should run because they expose all American families including their own to risk by declining to run. 

The argument is valid -- which means that it is true if and only if the premises are true.

The source of security and opportunity for a family is the Lord, our God. I love the USA, but the USA is a conduit for gifts. Security and opportunity are rarer elsewhere, to be sure, but the USA is not their exclusive source.

I believe Ryan should run, but this argument is unsound.

An argument from the parable of the talents is better: Why has Ryan been gifted with such insight and charisma, and why has Daniels such an incisive mind for government finance, if not to apply these gifts to the great challenges of the day in order that they and we may glorify God? 

Of course, we'll have to issue God a new visa and green card ...