Does that mean it is now a battle of nitwits?

Motivation. In the current political divide, neither side feels much motivation to avoid deficits. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that both sides feel motivated to adopt policies that are almost certain to lead to deficits.

Democrats believe in expanding government. (All right, in fairness, some moderate Democrats could perhaps be better said to not believe in significantly shrinking government. None appear to believe our government is grossly ovesized.) This tends to produce more spending than revenues, hence a deficit.

Republicans believe in shrinking government. (All right, in fairness, some moderate Republicans could perhaps be better said to not believe in significantly expanding government. None appear to believe our government is grossly undersized.) The presently favored policy for doing this is to “starve the beast” by reducing revenues. This tends to produce more spending than revenues, hence a deficit.

Ignorance. The Democrats stubbornly and stupidly insist on disbelieving in the extreme value theorem, in the fiscal variant promulgated by Laffer. They appear to believe that the only practical limit on revenues is political will to raise the tax rate.

The Republicans stubbornly and stupidly insist on disbelieving in basic monetary policy. They appear to believe that reducing revenues must shrink government, refusing to see that this simply shifts the form of taxation towards inflation.

Dishonesty. The Democrats stubbornly and wickedly continue to insist that the rich are not paying their “fair share” and there would be plenty of revenue for everything on their agenda if the money could only be pried out of the hands of “special interests.” They have to know better. They do know better. It’s too convenient a lie to forgo.

The Republicans stubbornly and wickedly continue to insist that the Laffer curve tips over as such a low rate of taxation that any tax reduction they propose will increase revenues, thus avoiding making painful cuts in spending — which rather contradicts their line that reducing revenues is good because it forces painful cuts in spending. They have to know better. They do know better. It’s too convenient a lie to forgo.

None of the preceding should be mistaken for the Tweedledee-Tweedledum talking point of Libertarians. I am a Republican, naturally. (His Majesty, curiously, considers himself nonpartisan, which should give pause to those who rant on about the merits of nonpartisan government. Don’t tell His Majesty I said so.) I think the current Democratic agenda accurately reflects their basic philosophy, which is fundamentally flawed. I think the current Republican behavior does not accurately reflect their basic philosophy, but is a policy of desperation. Starting right with spending cuts, rather than “starving the beast,” would shrink government and eliminate deficits, but it is politically impossible.

One thing is clear: It is now no longer possible to avoid a very painful economic future, thanks to the massive present deficits and the looming Social Security crisis. The only hope for avoiding economic catastrophe is to raise taxes and reduce spending and promote economic growth. Given the present political climate, it’s a forlorn hope. One might as well hope to take out an armored battle station the size of a small moon with a couple of warheads the size of a Fourth of July rocket.

… Fundamentally, Ash’arism was a rejection of “natural law” and reason in favor of an all-powerful God of pure will and power. The idea of an ordered universe that behaves according to certain ordained laws — whether moral or physical — would have been understood by the Mu’tazilites. For the Ash’arites, this was blasphemy, an outrage against God’s omnipotence.In the language of philosophy, this way of looking at the world is known, somewhat confusingly, as “voluntarism.” To quote Reilly, it “holds that God is the primary cause of everything and there are no secondary causes. There is no causal mediation. Therefore, what may seem to be ‘natural laws,’ such as the laws of gravity, physics, etc. are really nothing more than God’s customs or habits, which He is at complete liberty to break or change at any moment.”

While Christianity recognizes the possibility of miracles, when God intervenes to supersede natural law, in Islam every nanosecond is the functional equivalent of a miracle, the result of God’s divine act. Thus there is no law of gravity, only God’s will, determining moment by moment that the apple will fall from the tree. Neither is there any morality, no objective good and evil as we in the West would see it, only the arbitrary decrees of an all-powerful God. There is no “truth that is written in our hearts,” only the truths that are written in the Koran, which could just as well be otherwise if such were the whim of God. As Ibn Hazm pronounced in the 11th century, “He judges as He pleases, and whatever He judges is just. . . . If God the Exalted had informed us that He would punish us for the acts of others . . . all that would have been right and just.” The problem, one might say, is obvious. In science, the repudiation of natural law meant the explicit denial of cause and effect….

This explains much.

While there is much that is right about evangelical Christianity, and we share considerable ground on social issues, the overemphasis on grace in evangelical Christianity yields a disconnect between a particular class of causes and a specific effect — namely, one’s conduct in life and one’s eternal fate — that explains much that is not right with evangelical Christianity.

The problem appears to be worse in mainstream Islam.

I had the privilege of being taught high school physics by a teacher who actually held a Ph.D. in physics. (He was moonlighting from a poorly-paying postdoctoral position, which would be a fascinating topic for a blog post in itself.) He once took the better part of a class period to discuss basic philosophical terms and concepts, on the theory that a doctor of philosophy should actually know about and teach philosophy occasionally. It was good and interesting, except that he displayed his ignorance of smaller religious groups at one point: He suggested Mormons are voluntarists. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. I know of no other significant religious group that is more willing to believe that God Himself is governed by law.

Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov.

[Lord Lovat] was ordering now, as they waded up Sword Beach, in that drawly voice of his: “Give us a tune, piper.” Mr Millin thought him a mad bastard. The man beside him, on the point of jumping off, had taken a bullet in the face and gone under. But there was Lovat, strolling through fire quite calmly in his aristocratic way, allegedly wearing a monogrammed white pullover under his jacket and carrying an ancient Winchester rifle, so if he was mad Mr Millin thought he might as well be ridiculous too, and struck up “Hielan’ Laddie”. Lovat approved it with a thumbs-up, and asked for “The Road to the Isles”. Mr Millin inquired, half-joking, whether he should walk up and down in the traditional way of pipers. “Oh, yes. That would be lovely.”

Dead at 88.

Thus Don Colacho.

It hardly needs to be said that the Jr. Ganymede endorses horsewhipping people who craft their own vows on the steps of their club. Assuming a club would have them.

About folks who say their vows while skydiving, we can only express a wish that in the dictates of kindly providence their parachutes may fail to open.