Beer of the Week (Vol. CXLV)

Another better late than never edition of Beer of the Week sponsored as always by the adventurous folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help you find the wine, whiskey, and beer to challenge your taste buds.

Our featured beer this week is Sierra Nevada Hoptimum:

A group of hop-heads and publicans challenged our Beer Camp brewers to push the extremes of whole-cone hop brewing. The result is this: a 100 IBU, whole-cone hurricane of flavor. Simply put —Hoptimum: the biggest whole-cone IPA we have ever produced. Aggressively hopped, dry-hopped, AND torpedoed with our exclusive new hop varieties for ultra-intense flavors and aromas.

Resinous "new-school" and exclusive hop varieties carry the bold and aromatic nose. The flavor follows the aroma with layers of aggressive hoppiness, featuring notes of grapefruit rind, rose, lilac, cedar, and tropical fruit—all culminating in a dry and lasting finish.

A 4-pack of 12oz bottles goes for $8.99. Hop-green colored label with a rendering of a classic hop-head.

STYLE: Imperial IPA

ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 10.4%

COLOR (0-2): Golden orange color that’s mostly clear. 2

AROMA (0-2): Strong hoppy scents of grapefruit and pine. 2

HEAD (0-2): White color, good volume and lacing. 2

TASTE (0-5): Hoptimum delivers as promised with a heavy hop punch. Like the smell, there are strong flavors of grapefruit, pine, and floral hops with a touch of sweetness. Medium-bodied with a smoother mouthfeel. You can definitely feel the heat, yet it remains pretty drinkable despite the high alcohol content. 4

AFTERTASTE (0-2): The finish is dry and the delicious hop flavors hang around for a long time. 2

OVERALL (0-6): A top notch Imperial IPA that delivers a great hop bang for the buck. Hoptimum has rich, bold hop flavors with a nice kick that pushes the taste envelope without going too far. 5

TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 17

A Doctor, A Scientist, and a Professor Walk Into a Church...

James Taranto highlights a New York Times piece on how evangelicals think about politics in his Best of the Web Today roundup that almost seems like a parody:

If you found that last story aggravating, here's an academic tale that will make you smile. Tanya Luhrmann, a Stanford anthropologist, did some field work on an exotic tribe called "evangelical Christians." She explains their mysterious ways to the open-minded, curious readers of the New York Times.

"If you want to understand how evangelicals conceive of their political life, you need to understand how they think about God," she explains. "I saw that when people prayed, they imagined themselves in conversation with God. They do not, of course, think that God is imaginary. . . . They imagine God as wiser and kinder than any human they know."

Fascinating, isn't it? Apparently some of these people live right here in America! In her fieldwork, Luhrmann reports, "I met doctors, scientists and professors at the churches."

Smart people who don’t think God is imaginary? Probably not news to those with even a basic understanding of religion in America, but I’m sure it will come as a surprise to more than a few readers of the NY Times.

Metrics Are Hard

Women, Welch Clash at Forum (WSJ-sub req):

On Wednesday, Mr. Welch and his wife and writing partner, Suzy Welch, told a gathering of women executives from a range of industries that, in matters of career track, it is results and performance that chart the way. Programs promoting diversity, mentorships and affinity groups may or may not be good, but they are not how women get ahead. "Over deliver," Mr. Welch advised. "Performance is it!"

Angry murmurs ran through the crowd. The speakers asked: Were there any questions? "We're regaining our consciousness," one woman executive shot back.

Mr. Welch had walked into a spinning turbine fan blade.

"Of course women need to perform to advance," Alison Quirk, an executive vice president at the investment firm State Street Corp., said later. "But we can all do more to help people understand their unconscious biases."

"He showed no recognition that the culture shapes the performance metrics, and the culture is that of white men," another executive said.

Memo to the ladies: if you so desire, you can debate why there aren't more women CEOs and discuss what might be done to change the situation, but trying to claim it's because the metrics used to measure business performance are inherently sexist and racist ain't going to help move your cause forward. And neither is talking about how you're "regaining your consciousness" for that matter.

Business as Usual

With all the hubbub over the attempts of the Legislature to put a deal together to finance a new stadium for the Vikings, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the State of Minnesota regularly shovels millions of dollars at private companies that allows these firms to make more money. Two new approved projects are expected to bring jobs to Iron Range:

ST. PAUL, Minn. — The board charged with investing in development on the state's Iron Range has approved funding for two projects that will create more jobs in northeastern Minnesota.

The Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board voted today to approve a $650,000 loan for Ellefson Off Highway in Iron, Minnesota. The company refurbishes mining equipment. Company vice president Dan Houck explained Ellefson's business to board members. "We essentially purchase whole pieces of equipment from around the world, bring it back to the Iron Range," Houck said. "It will be dismantled, gone through our shop, which is where these jobs are needed. We need mechanics, warehousing people, welders that can essentially bring these components to the levels we need them to be. The parts are then sold." The company's expansion plans include adding nine new jobs.

Nine jobs in exchange for a $650K loan from the state? Doesn’t seem as if the taxpayers of Minnesota are getting a lot of bang for our bucks.

The board also voted to pay for a $2 million expansion for DeCare Dental in Gilbert. That company plans to add 120 customer service positions.

DFL Rep. Tom Rukavina, who chairs the board, said it's a good investment for the state. "People like the jobs. They stick around a long time, the benefits here are good. Starting wages are around $12 an hour and most people working there are making $15 an hour or better," Rukavina said. "You know, we've been promised that by the end of the year there will be 40 new employees there, so it's great."

Yeah, that is great, isn’t it? I guess it’s great if you’re the politician who can claim credit for using other people’s money to create jobs. Or if you’re DeCare Dental and you just suckered the state into picking up the tab for two million dollars in expansion expense. Or if you’re one of the one-hundred-twenty folks who will now be making twelve dollars an hour thanks to money confiscated from your neighbors.

But for the taxpayers of Minnesota who see their hard earned money forcibly redistributed by the state to a private business it might not be all that. Or for competitors of the two firms on the receiving end of this latest state handout. That’s what’s really so insidious about the government stepping in to pick winners and losers with the power of the public purse. If you’re a business who doesn’t put your hand out or stick your snout into the public trough you may well find yourself at a competitive disadvantage with other firms who eagerly belly up to the bar of public funding. So even if getting into bed with the government may violate your core free market principles, you may find that you have no choice but to do exactly that.

(Photo from Star Tribune)

Rukavina wasn’t the only politician basking in the spotlight of another corporate giveaway as Governor Mark Dayton took a break from shilling for a Vikings stadium to hail the handout:

“I would like to personally thank these quality companies for investing in Minnesota by growing 129 new jobs on the Iron Range. Both projects illustrate how investing in our existing businesses is a strategy for success,” Dayton said.

The companies get thanked for taking our money? How about a little something for those of us giving it up? Left unsaid it all this celebration about how wonderful it is that the state is “investing” in these businesses is any discussion about where the money comes from and whether individuals would have chosen to invest their money differently had the state not forcibly picked it from their pockets.

Oh, in case you were wondering DeCare Dental is a wholly owned subsidiary of WellPoint, Inc. WellPoint CEO compensation slipped in 2011:

WellPoint Inc.'s earnings sank last year, as the health insurer struggled with losses in its Medicare Advantage business, and the total compensation delivered to Chairwoman and CEO Angela Braly slipped as well.

Braly, 50, received 2011 compensation valued at $13.2 million, according to an Associated Press analysis of the Indianapolis company's annual proxy statement. That represents a 2 percent drop compared to 2010.

Welfare for millionaires, anyone?

Don't Know Much History

A story in today's Star Tribune on the difficulties that young adults are facing in our tough economic environment contained a great example of the lack of perspective that seems to be common amongst this particular cohort. Recession generation has adulthood on hold:

Alyssa Kjellberg still can't believe it. Two years beyond college, her career path has led only to jobs at a greenhouse, a hotel front desk, an aunt's office and a seasonal landscaping company -- all paying less than $12 an hour. After applying for about 100 jobs, the environmental science major even offered "one week of free labor'' last summer to get a foot in the door at the landscaping company. But that job ended with the season, as will the one she's in now. Her dream of becoming a park ranger or environmental educator is drifting away. "There are so many people looking for work, you feel lost in the shuffle,'' said Kjellberg, 23. "I see my grandpa who lived through World War II and all he had to go through. Sometimes I feel like I'm living through something like that, too.''

Living through a world war that killed millions of people and not being able to land the type of job you want after graduating from college? Why yes Alyssa, I'm sure the experiences are quite similar.

Walk The Talk

Next week the Minnesota legislature will decide whether to build a football stadium that would ensure that the Vikings remain in the Twin Cities for the next generation.  I've been a football fan in general and specifically a Vikings fan my entire life. Memories of watching them play are plentiful, especially the happier memories of their successes in my childhood.  Losing the team would greatly disappoint me.

So why am I writing this post to the legislature to reject the Vikings' bid for a publicly financed stadium?  Because I need to walk the talk of my conservative beliefs.  For almost as long as I've been a Vikings fan, I've railed against wasteful government that oversteps its bounds.  Using public funding to support a private enterprise is the most basic example of government waste.

The Vikings are a private enterprise that employs hundreds of Minnesotans.  However, they appear to be bigger and more important than their economic impact suggests.  Examples of Minnesota companies much larger than the Vikings include Valspar, Pentair, and Fastenal.  Each of these companies employs thousands of Minnesotans, and generates billions of dollars of revenue (over $10 billion between the three companies).  You don't hear our legislators debate about giving these companies hundreds of millions of dollars.  Yet the Vikings generate a small fraction of their revenue ($221 million), but because of their visibility in the form of TV contracts we are talking about providing them with a capital asset, courtesy of the taxpayers, of nearly $1 billion.

Investing capital into a medium sized employer may make financial sense.  However, one must derive a return from this investment.  The problem with building a stadium is that the investors (taxpayers) don't receive any of the return.  This is not the same as building infrastructure, it is more like providing a payoff to a favored campaign donor.  Anyone who is honest about the economic impact of public stadiums can see that they are an inefficient use of government funds.

If conservatives want to have any success in reversing the trend of government waste, we must accept that things we might like that don't fit the true role of government must be first on the chopping block.  I'd also argue that it is immoral to oppose welfare for borderline needy while providing significantly greater welfare to a billionaire like Ziggy Wilf.

 Do the right thing, legislators.  Just say no to a billion dollar boondoggle.

On Target

The day before Easter I brought the kids over to a friend’s house for an egg hunt. After the scavenging for poultry products had ended, we spent some time catching up on what we had been reading of late. He mentioned that he had recently received a book featuring a critical examination of the US approach to the War on Terror. This lead to further discussion on the topic of terrorism itself and what had and had not transpired in the years since 9/11. Both of us expressed surprise that there haven’t been more attempts at “lone wolf” or “Nike terrorism” type attacks in the US. It seems like such attacks would be relatively easy to carry out, are difficult to prevent, and would create a level of fear and distrust among the public at large far out of magnitude to the actual impact of the attacks themselves. Why Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups haven’t attempted more of these attacks is a mystery.

Not too long after that, I learned that Mark Yost had released a novel called Soft Target:

"Soft Target" is Wall Street Journal writer Mark Yost's debut novel.

Nick Mattera is a former Marine Corps bomb squad technician who survived four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's come home to his Italian-American neighborhood on Chicago's North Side and becomes one of the fire department's young hotshots. But Nick never expected to run into Abdullah and Jhalil.

The two al Qaeda terrorists have come to Chicago with one goal in mind: indiscriminately kill Jewish Americans and open up a whole new front in the War on Terror. Adding to Nick's troubles are Jack Weinstein, an opportunistic politician who wants to close Nick's firehouse, and Rachel Cohen, Weinstein's sexy legislative aide who has eyes for Nick and doubts about her boss.

The story that unfolds in "Soft Target" is best described as Tom Clancy meets Backdraft meets 50 Shades of Grey. Mark Yost is himself a firefighter/paramedic and gives readers an unparalleled look at life inside a firehouse. More importantly, he shows just how easy it would be for two dedicated extremists to use America's open society against it and carry out these dastardly missions. When readers finish "Soft Target," they'll be anxiously awaiting the next book in the Nick Mattera Series, and nervously asking themselves, "Why hasn't something like this really happened here?"

Which of course was exactly the question my friend and I had just been asking. So the timing for Mark’s initial foray into the world of action adventure thrillers (if that’s what they’re calling the genre these days) couldn’t have been better. And yes, I refer to the author in the informal manner as I am personally acquainted with him. I had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know Mark a bit when he was living in the Twin Cities some years ago. So this will not be a completely objective review although I will do my best to avoid it becoming nothing more than a over-the-top plug for a chum.

I have to say that coming in to the book, my expectations were not high. This is a not a slight in way toward Mark. It’s just that his previous writing had been fact-grounded topics such as sports, history, politics, museums, etc. Moving to novels is usually not easy an transition to make for any writer to make and Mark’s decision to enter ground well-trod by the likes of Tom Clancy, Vince Flynn and a host of others would invite inevitable comparisons and raise skepticism about how good the book could possibly be.

For the most part, I was pleasantly surprised by what I discovered in the electronic pages of “Soft Target.” I haven’t read a work in the genre for some time and sort of assumed that all the possible compelling story lines had already been played out. Yet Mark was able to create one that held my interest from the beginning and made me want to know what the eventual outcome would be. That in itself is an accomplishment in a novel of this sort.

Mark also does a nice job exploring a number of different subjects with details that are more often than not quite interesting and even informative. As mentioned in the description, he delves into the inner workings of firefighters and paramedics in a way that I thought was thorough without getting in the way of the story. I’ve read authors who know a lot about particular subjects and seem to feel the need to share EVERYTHING they know on them to the point where you find yourself skipping ahead until you can back an area that’s relevant to the plot.

Among other subjects that Mark touches on in addition to firefighting/paramedics and terrorism are:

- Immigration
- Chicago politics
- Unions
- The Mafia
- New York pizza
- Craft beer

That’s far from a complete list as at some point I lost track of the all the macro and micro topics broached at some level in “Soft Target.”

I would say the strength of the book is the characters. The good guys are flawed, but likeable people that you can identify with. The bad guys (and there are many of them, only a few who are actually terrorists) are people that are easy to dislike yet also real. They’re not outlandish stereotypes, but believable villains whose misdeeds run the gamut from the relatively petty to pure evil. Seeing a number of them get their comeuppance in some manner another provides the reader with a measure of satisfaction as well.

The only issue I really had with the characters was one which misfired badly:

“We know you went to the fire academy with Paul Happe, president of the IAFF. You two play golf together, ride motorcycles together. You even went to Sturgis last summer.”

Paul Happe? Not exactly a Dickens’ level of cleverness or creativity with the name there.

The ending did a feel bit rushed and I felt it could have been played out just a little longer. But again, from an overall perspective the plot was engaging and the story was well-paced.

Okay, now for my biggest criticism, which some many find odd. I should have been warned by the description of “Soft Target” as “Clancy meets Backdraft meets 50 Shades of Grey” that there was going to a fair of sex involved, but I was still surprised by the amount of time spent detailing various goings on between the sheets. Now, I’ve got nothing against reading about sex per se. But I expect whatever liaisons are being detailed in a novel to be in some manner germane to the overall storyline and not unnecessarily gratuitous. And I felt a fair amount of the sex in “Soft Target” was exactly that: gratuitous. Not the girl on girl action of course. That was just about the right amount.

But hey, when the worst thing you can say about a book is that there was too much sex, it’s not exactly the most damning of criticisms. And at $2.99 for the digital version at Amazon, you can hardly find a better value for the money. If you buy “Soft Target” before May 7th, 100% of the proceeds will go to the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. A good read for a good cause.

One Term Stand

Joe Doakes from Saint Paul e-mails to expand on the Romney-Ryan campaign theme:

I’d love to see Romney say this (he can’t, he’d be lynched, but maybe he can find a stalking horse, a GOP Carville-type):

“In 2008, voters had a historic chance to right a long-standing wrong by electing America’s first Black President. Yes, his credentials were a little thin and his campaign promises more idealistic than realistic, but the country was in pretty good shape so we could afford to indulge ourselves. Today, President Obama is running on the same empty catchphrases but the country isn’t in nearly as good a shape. We already elected a Black President. We’ve checked that box. Time to move on. Time to get serious. Time for somebody who understands money and budgets. Time for Romney/Ryan.”

While it might be a bit of stretch to say that the country was in pretty good shape in 2008, it is certainly clear that four years under Obama have only brought us closer to the fiscal day of reckoning and that we can no longer afford symbolic gestures more about doing what feels good in the moment than what we know to be the best thing for the future.

Not A Regular Guy

Dorothy Rabinowtiz thinks that Voters Might Appreciate the Serious Romney:

It would help, finally, if Mr. Romney proved himself the first candidate in years to grasp that aspirants to the presidency who appear on late-night comedy shows invariably end up looking like buffoons. That's in addition to denigrating their candidacy, the presidency itself, and looking unutterably pathetic in the effort to look like regular guys.

Most voters with any sense—this will perhaps exclude a fair number of the screamers in the late-night studio audiences—will understand that the candidate isn't one of them, not even close. That voters in their right minds don't choose a candidate for president because they've had the privilege of seeing him look unspeakably absurd while engaging in obsequious exchanges with late-night hosts.

Americans have good reason these days—count the behavior of the Secret Service as the latest—to value a candidate who not only knows but feels the meaning of the office of the presidency of the United States, its symbolism and of all that's connected to it. Standing up for that symbolism against the showbiz convention of political campaigns today wouldn't be a bad way to begin Mr. Romney's run for the White House—if his handlers allow it.

Amen. This pandering by candidates to pretend that they're just like the guy next door needs to stop tout suite. I don't want the guy next door to be president, I want someone who can fill the role of leading the country through a difficult time when the decisions we make (or decide not to) will have long-term repercussions on the future state of the nation.

I also like the idea of the Romney campaign theme revolving around him being the serious choice. And wouldn't that choice be even more clear if he had an equally (or perhaps even more) serious running mate? Romney-Ryan: It's Time to Get Serious.

Porous Is He

Viacom's SpongeBob Crisis (WSJ):

But the show may be suffering from overexposure. In recent years, Nickelodeon has expanded Spongebob's place on its schedule. For all of 2011, "SpongeBob" accounted for 31% of the network's programming, and even hit 40% toward the end up the year, according to Nielsen That's up from 23% in 2007. Reruns traditionally have been seen as ideal for kids because, television executives say, children are often happy to watch the same programming over and over. Paul Debenedittis, senior vice president of programming strategy at Disney Channels Worldwide, says his networks sometimes play their most successful shows more frequently, but only to a limit. "There's definitely a risk in relying on one or two shows to fuel your entire channel," he says. Moreover, Viacom last year licensed the show and other Nickelodeon programs to Netflix, increasing its availability beyond the TV. While the shows became available on the site in May, Netflix introduced a "just for kids' section of its site in August using pictures to display program selections. The severe ratings declines began in September.

"This is pretty close to a smoking gun on SpongeBob getting worn out," says Mr. Juenger. He published a study last week showing that ratings for children's channels were lower in households with Netflix, even though those households are more likely to have children.

As much as my wife and I have enjoyed the show over the years (and our kids still love it today), it’s pretty clear that SpongeBob jumped the shark sometime in the last two-three years. The quality of the writing is nowhere near as sharp as it was in the glory days of the show. While that may not explain why SpongeBob isn’t as popular among kids, I don’t think it should be dismissed entirely. If a kid’s show can also appeal to parents, there’s a better chance that it will succeed (especially in our house).

Another factor may be stricter parental attitudes. In September, the journal Pediatrics published a widely circulated study linking shows like "SpongeBob" to kids' poor performance on tests of skills such as following rules. And some parents say they don't let their kids watch the show. Ian Guarnieri of Maplewood, N.J., says he started letting his son watch the show when he was five years old, but quickly pulled the plug. "Once we started to watch it, we decided it wasn't something we wanted him to be watching. It's very low brow."

Low brow as in not tediously seeking to be educational, diverse, and touchy feeling as most of the children’s shows on public television are? Sorry pal, but while it may not be the same top shelf children's show that it once was, I’d take SpongeBob and his low brow humor any day over these bland offerings that parents delude themselves into thinking are somehow good for their children.

A Cross of Shale

Tim from Colorado e-mails on the recent revelation of the EPA’s real motives:

How disappointing it is, but not surprising, that the mainstream media has virtually ignored the comments and resignation of Al Armendariz, the EPA Administrator for Region 6:

At a local Texas government meeting in 2010, Mr. Armendariz compared his policy enforcement strategy against oil and gas companies to that of the Romans, who would enter a town and crucify a few of those that put up resistance, bringing the others in-line. Mr. Armendariz believed the EPA should employ the same strategy against oil and gas exploration companies, and in particular to Range Resources (whom the EPA has recently decided to drop their claims against). Under Mr. Armendariz’s direction, the EPA has accused Range Resources and others of contamination of air and water in the development of gas wells using fracturing techniques.

Mr. Armendariz may have resigned, but I don’t think for a second that this crucifixion culture within the EPA followed him out the door. Remember in 2008 then-candidate Obama openly admitted “if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” So the precedent was set four years ago. Forgive me if I seem dubious that the Obama Administration has publicly stated that Mr. Armendariz’s comments do not represent the EPA as a whole; I think that not only do his comments represent the EPA’s views, they also represent the Obama Administration’s views. Mr. Armendariz was an Obama appointee, not some EPA underling who wasn’t fully vetted.

In a nutshell, here’s what the Obama Administration is doing to the fossil fuels industries. Despite renewable-energy advocate’s claims otherwise, solar power and wind generation are not new technologies; wind generators have been around since the 30’s and the first solar cell was developed in the mid-50’s. The problem with renewable energy technologies is that they are not cost-competitive with conventional generation like coal-fired power plants, natural gas combustion turbines, and nuclear plants, and in your and my lifetime this will be ever so. But that’s a point lost on the renewable energy crowd. Obama is dumping billions into renewable technologies to try and make them competitive, and thus far there is little to show for the money that’s been spent.

So if you can’t make a technology cost competitive with competing technologies on one end, what can you do? You can make the competing technologies cost-prohibitive. That is exactly how the Obama Administration is shoving wind and solar technology down our throats. Obama is in favor of carbon taxes because it will make coal-fired generation more expensive, and he can arbitrarily fix the tax to bring the cost of coal-fired generation up to wherever the limit is with wind and solar generation. But now these meddlesome oil and gas companies have found an innovative way to make natural gas more available and less expensive than ever before, which makes natural gas combustion turbines attractive to power companies, so how does the Obama Administration deal with that? Simple; they’ll use the EPA to level unfounded claims that the fracturing technique causes ground water and air pollution violations, and make oil and gas companies spend millions of dollars in fines and defending their process in a court of law. I would bet if you water-boarded one of these EPA higher-ups (am I the only one that would like to see that?), they would admit that they would prefer that the fracturing techniques were outlawed all-together.

For these reasons I think the Keystone XL Pipeline project was resisted by the Obama Administration because the Canadian oil supply would help stabilize oil prices in the U.S. and allow Americans to continue driving the dreaded SUV, the mother-of-all-boogeyman for the environmental left. If you think I’m crazy, just remember Energy Secretary Chu’s comments that he thinks gas in the U.S. should be $6-$8 per gallon. If the Obama Administration can’t get the market to drive the price there by restricting crude oil supplies, I’ll bet you a future tank of gas for a tank today that they’ll find a reason to levy taxes to get it to that level.

The EPA stopped serving the interests of the public welfare long ago. If Romney wins the election this year, one of his top-five goals should be to establish congressional oversight of the EPA.

One of the often overlooked realities of American political life is that the real power of the presidency doesn’t lie with the president’s ability to push legislation through Congress or rally the citizenry by using the much ballyhooed “bully pulpit.” Rather, it’s the power to drive the behavior of myriad agencies like the EPA when it comes to regulation and enforcement. And the actions undertaken by these agencies are often not openly debated or discussed. Mr. Armendariz’s comments about crucifying oil and gas companies were an all too rare glimpse into the mindset that is pervasive among Obama appointees. That’s the real power of the presidency.

Time to Get Serious

William McGurn has more on Paul Ryan and the Catholic left in a piece in today's WSJ called Paul Ryan's Cross to Bear:

Of course, what drives Mr. Ryan's religious critics bonkers is not his numbers. It's his claim that his policies reflect Catholic principles. At Georgetown he summarized one of the differences he has with the protesting professors this way: "I do not believe that the preferential option for the poor means a preferential option for big government."

For a certain kind of Catholic, this is anathema. They assume only one possible interpretation of Catholic social teaching: their own. So when a Republican House budget chairman dares suggest that his approach to taxes and spending also rests on a moral foundation, the cry goes up: Partisanship! Social Darwinism! War on the Poor!

Now, let us stipulate that those of us who incline to Mr. Ryan's application of Catholic social teaching—not least Mr. Ryan himself—do not assert we enjoy any monopoly. Plainly others applying the same principles can and do reach very different conclusions. When that happens, the obvious thing to do would be to have an honest conversation about which path has proved better at achieving its goals.

That's just what Mr. Ryan asked for at Georgetown. He put it this way: "If there were ever a time for serious but respectful discussion, among Catholics as well as those who don't share our faith, that time is now."

Alas, a "serious but respectful discussion" is the last thing Mr. Ryan's critics want. For one thing, the critics don't have a real alternative: Democrats haven't passed a budget in years precisely so they won't have to defend their spending philosophy.

More to the point, a "serious but respectful discussion" would have to concede something Mr. Ryan's religious opponents are loath to do: that conservative Republicans advancing market-oriented answers are as serious about their moral case as liberal Democrats are about theirs.

To voluntarily enter the lion's den at Georgetown and endure the slings and arrows from progressive Catholics takes a lot of gumption. It's just the latest example that demonstrates how Mr. Ryan is ready, willing, and able to take the fight anywhere and argue fearlessly and tirelessly for the conservative principals he believes in.

The prospect of Mr. Ryan facing off against Joe Biden (or Hillary Clinton) in a Vice Presidential debate is almost too delicious too imagine. Even if, for some deeply misguided reason, Ryan is not the choice as Romney's running mate, how about a debate featuring Ryan and Biden arguing Catholic social teaching?