Is strategic philanthropy the cure or a symptom? (Of spiritual pride and rationality run mad, that is.) Bill Schambra in NPQ at his polemical, high spirited, satiric best. Paul Brest, formerly head of Hewlett Foundation is scheduled to respond, and what a cordial Mutt and Jeff act that should be. That first Brest should publish his Theory of of All Change, so we have a guide to social change downloadable from Amazon prior to making grants seems a reasonable suggestion to me. How else will we know what works? And why waste money if we don't have a theory that has been approved by Brest or someone else in authority, who can correlate the data, and give us a definitive answer? If the Theory of All Change is not complete, shouldn't we hire experts and work on the theory part first, before feeding the hungry, tending the sick, or euthanizing abandoned dogs in the pound? What if we gave the dogs to homeless people? Maybe that would produce a better net result measured in Utils, a proxy for Goodness. Unless Utils are optimized per dollar invested, what assurance do we have that our giving is for the most good? And why would we as rational actors settle for less? I posed these questions to my Fellows and Senior Fellows in the madhouse, and we agree with Paul Brest! That Schambra is crazy.