harmonicminer

Barbour defends comments on race, but is the damage done to his potential 2012 bid?

“A pattern of remarks is a different matter than one off-the-cuff anecdote that suggests a man remembers the elders of his youth through rose-colored glasses,” Geraghty writes. “Watermelon jokes are appalling. Perhaps in that time and place the comment was common, but to modern ears, across the country today, it’s an unthinkably obnoxious and racially provocative remark.”

This kind of thing only hurts Republicans, of course. Democrats get away with murder…. or at least, former membership in murderous organizations. And “insensitive remarks” seem only to harm Republicans, too.

Youtube has decided to end the exposure of Palestinian hate speech by closing the account of the pro-Jewish organization that exposes it.

That makes sense.  To an idiot, maybe.

UPDATE:  Youtube has reinstated PALWATCH.  Good for them and good for all who asked them to do so.

h/t: Innermore sent me this link.  Thanks.

Speaking about a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair about whether or not religion is a force for good in the world, the Gospel Coalition blog comments on the misplaced focus of the debate, in Be It Resolved: Hitchens and Blair Debate Religion.

The debate itself also demonstrates, however, the way in which modernization has shaped the debate. The question at hand was not about God’s existence or religions’ truthfulness, but about their respective usefulness. Is religion a force for good? To begin with this question is to concede the most crucial elements of the debate before it begins.

For example, in Hitchens’ opening remarks he posed several questions:

Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs? To appeal to our fear and to our guilt, is it good for the world? . . . To terrify children with the image of hell and eternal punishment, not just of themselves, but their parents and those they love?

Behind each of these questions lies Hitchens’ conviction that none of these claims corresponds to truth or reality. From his perspective, there is no deity who takes sides in human affairs or holds people accountable after death for the decisions made in life.

It seems unlikely that he would ask similar questions about hard realities he believes to be true. Is it good for the world to listen to journalists who takes sides in wars and human affairs (as Hitchens has done time and again)? To appeal to our fear and guilt by informing us that unless we prioritize care of the earth, we will be guilty of its destruction—is it good for the world? To terrify children with the images of nuclear war and the risk it poses not only to themselves, but also to their parents and those they love? If good means nice or safe, then none of these topics is good for the world. If good means true or real, then we must address them.

Exactly.  Hitchens and Blair both seem to tacitly accept a utilitarian view of value and truth.  This may be natural for Hitchens, who “describes himself as a believer in the Enlightenment values of secularism, humanism, and reason.”  The utilitarian philosophy was an outgrowth of the Enlightenment’s fixation with progress and technological improvement, but applied to morality and society.   To make a machine work happily, you do what is good for the machine, and to make people happy, you do what you believe is good for them, without regard to what is exactly “true” in a larger sense.  Morality is assumed to have no root other than the outcomes it produces for the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  That “good” is usually expressed in totally materialist, secular terms, without regard to whether it is good for people to know truth, and whether that knowledge has any spiritual benefit for them, in this life or the next.

But what’s true is true, regardless if it is obviously “good” for people in terms of outcomes we can immediately see.  Hitchens takes a completely utilitarian slant towards religion at any time, though he seems bent on denying the obvious good it has done along with the bad.  Blair is leader of foundation that is interested in discovering the commonalities of all religions and promoting them in the name of common understanding, a perspective which is bound to blunt his interest in the particular truth claims these religions each make that are at variance with the other religions.  That means that neither party is very interested in what truth may underlie any particular religion, a blind spot that is expressed by the topic of this debate.

I suppose my utilitarian question for them both is this:  is it good for people who know nothing about the afterlife or the Creator’s role in creating this life or the next to tell other people that there is no Creator, and no afterlife, and no meaning in anything, ultimately, other than being physically comfortable in this life?

Pascal’s wager comes to mind.

Big legal setback for Obama’s health care overhaul

President Barack Obama’s historic health care overhaul hit its first major legal roadblock Monday, thrown into doubt by a federal judge’s declaration that the heart of the sweeping legislation is unconstitutional. The decision handed Republican foes ammunition for their repeal effort next year as the law heads for almost certain eventual judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges.

“Keep in mind this is one ruling by one federal district court. We’ve already had two federal district courts that have ruled that this is definitely constitutional,” Obama said. “You’ve got one judge who disagreed. That’s the nature of these things.”

I suppose the simplest question is this:  if the federal government can mandate the purchase of health insurance for all citizens, what can’t it require you to buy?  Is there anything the government can’t require or control under the commerce clause?

Do I have to buy galoshes?  Cheesecake?  A TV?  A phone?  A computer?  Vitamins?  A bicycle?  A dictionary (to look up the meaning of words in the federally mandated copy of the IRS code that I will have to buy)?  A subscription to the New York Times?  A time share condo (to live in while I have the federally mandated evironmental check on my house)?  A car (to flee marauding IRS agents)?

You laugh.  Or sneer.  But in essence, there is no limit to congressional power if I can be forced to buy anything I simply do not want or choose to buy.

Marine at ‘Toys for Tots’ drive stabbed by theft suspect

A Marine Corps reservist helping in a “Toys for Tots” drive was stabbed Friday when he grappled with a fleeing shoplifting suspect, authorities in Augusta, Georgia, said.

Cpl. Phillip Duggan, 24, suffered a single stab wound. He was treated and released from the hospital later Friday, Sgt. Dan Carrier of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office said. “He’s doing fine.”

The suspect attempted to conceal property and was confronted by Best Buy employees, authorities said. An employee struggled with the suspect, who brandished a knife. The employees backed away from the armed man to prevent any injury to themselves or customers, Carrier told CNN.

Duggan and several other Marines wearing their dress blues were conducting the annual toy drive in the breezeway of the Best Buy when they heard the commotion and saw the suspect flee through the store entrance, Carrier said.

Duggan tackled the suspect and other Marines also moved to stop the suspect, who stabbed Duggan once in the middle of his back, close to his spine, Carrier said.

“They jumped on top of him, and they pulled him down,” said “Toys for Tots” volunteer Larry Frelin.

“It took about five different people on top of him, but unfortunately he had a knife. He brought the knife around and managed to get it in the back of the Marine,” Frelin told CNN affiliate WRDW.

Tracey Attaway, 39, was in custody Friday night and was charged with armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime, authorities said.

CNN was unable to reach Duggan or the Attaway residence late Friday.

“Most people who shoplift don’t take it to this extreme,” Carrier said.

The thief was lucky.  Marines are generally trained in crippling or fatal hand-to-hand techniques.  And they aren’t generally friendly to thieves.  After bringing the knife out, the thief is very lucky to have survived the encounter.