Thought for the Day

"Pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes."

-John Ruskin

From Forbes.

Moderate Muslims, Rational Islamic Theology

Claire Berlinski contrasts the moderate Muslims she lives around in Turkey with radical Muslims. Start the video, then go to full screen for better video quality.

On Ricochet (a blog-like discussion forum), she discusses a new book concerning a time, prior to the ninth century, when Islamic theology may have been more conducive to reason than it is today.

The answer ... completely hinges on God’s relationship to reason in Sunni Islam. Is God reason, or logos, as the Greeks would say? If God himself is reason, then it is hard to close the mind because one would then be closing oneself to God. This, in fact, was the view of the first fully-developed theological school in Islam, the Mu‘tazilites. The Mu‘tazalites asserted the primacy of reason, and that one’s first duty is to engage in reason and, through it, to come to know God. . . .

However, the school of theology that arose to oppose the Mu’tazilites, the Ash‘arites, held the opposite. Unfortunately, by the end of the ninth century, they prevailed and became the formative influence in Sunni Islam. For the Ash‘arites, God is not reason, but pure will and absolute power. He is not bound by anything, including his own word. Since God is pure will, He has no reasons for his acts. Thus what He does cannot be understood by man. One of the things that God does is create the world, which also cannot be understood. . . .

Interesting reading if you're up for some academic cross-talk.

There's a lot most of us don't understand about Islam.

The Chilean Mine Rescue, Chris Matthews, Two Presidents

While the world celebrated, Chris Matthews took this story as an opportunity to become completely unmoored from reality, declaring to the head of the AFL-CIO that if the miners had been tea-partiers, they would have been dead in two days.

Ann Althouse:

What that shows is that Matthews — in stereotypical liberal fashion — has forgotten the way private individuals cooperate and help each other. The government and only the government must be the source of all beneficence. If you don't want the government to solve all your problems, you must think you and everyone else can be 100% self-reliant.

A couple of simple questions for Mr. Matthews:

If Tea Partiers are so consumed by an “every man for himself” philosophy, why are their gatherings typically so well-organized and why do they leave, say, the National Mall spotless?

If unions, on the other hand, are so dedicated to cooperation and respect for others, why did so many of their buses leave before the OneNation rally was over, leaving some speakers to speak to a few stragglers? And why did they trash the National Mall?  

Unions are just as subject to corruption and decline as business and government are. When unions are protected in their declined state by government, decline is likely to get worse.

The President of Chile called for international help from the best and the brightest, promising to keep bureaucracy from interfering. As a result, the rescue came much sooner that the December estimate.  In contrast, during the Gulf Oil Spill, President Obama rejected most international help for months.  He refused to suspend the Jones Act, which kept the Dutch and others from helping directly. Apparently, in the President's mind, the interests of unions outweighed the interests of fishermen and  others whose jobs were threatened by the oil spill. The Jones Act specifies that foreign entities working with our government (including in disasters) must be unionized. It has been suspended by other presidents in the past in emergencies. (Oh, and EPA regulations requiring near-perfection in equipment for removing oil from water also prevented much oil from being removed from the gulf by the Dutch).  Many people were disappointed with the President's response. Chile's politics and culture seem to be in an ascendant phase, in comparison.

The rescue of Chilean miners recalls an earlier rescue

A wonderful story. A leader emerged who "rallied the troops" to cooperate in a disciplined survival regimen. A strong leader is crucial in desperate circumstances, but command-and-control leadership is less effective when conditions are not so dire. The President of Chile also contributed to the general air of competence in response to this emergency.

An interesting perspective on the miner rescue from Daniel Henninger: Capitalism saved the miners.

Some will recoil at these triumphalist claims for free-market capitalism. Why make them now?

Here's why. When a catastrophe like this occurs—others that come to mind are the BP well blowout, Hurricane Katrina, various disasters in China—a government has all its chips pushed to the center of the table. Chile succeeds (it rebuilt after the February earthquake with phenomenal speed). China flounders. Two American administrations left the public agog as they stumbled through the mess.

Still, what the political class understands is that all such disasters wash away eventually, and that life in a developed nation reverts to a tolerable norm. . .

Chile has a new American hero from the private sector.  But NASA, a U.S. government agency, provided a lot of help in Chile, too.  Somehow, the flexible Chileans seemed to be able to coordinate government and private help.

 Wretchard recalls another dramatic rescue of 33 men which required perhaps even greater flexibility in the responses of the rescuers, not to mention extraordinary courage on the part of some of them.