Out of all the talk of the constitutional challenges to the individual mandate, I really don't think I've heard it put quite like this:
The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product.
So, what we have is a so-called conservative libertarian saying that it is well within a person's right to be a freeloader. It is our right to get sick and go to any public hospital and not ever pay a dime for care. Getting charged a few hundred bucks by the IRS due to no insurance for this privilege is just too much government.
It's like the conservative's crusade to reform welfare meets the Twilight Zone.
Benjamin Sarlin spotlights the ad that put Specter's blunt cynicism on display :
Specter blasted the ad, claiming his quote had been taken out of context. But reporters such as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent quickly pointed out that longer videos of his interview did not significantly change its meaning; Specter had also offered similar comments in other media appearances, saying on Meet the Press that "It became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were bleak" in discussing his switch.
Chait judges Specter's loss a net positive for the Democrats. His caveat:
[T]he White House does lose some credibility here in its ability to woo GOP defectors — which it may well need in upcoming years as the party moves rightward and strands the remaining moderates.
Can the federal government set the private sector's minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors? These are the sort of questions that Paul needs to be asked now, because the issue is not "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." It's "area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly."
Having already said his piece on NYC, Friedersdorf takes aim at a new target:
The overlap between colleagues and friends, already more pronounced in Washington, D.C. than any other city I've observed, is intensified by the fact that standards of loyalty are complicated. It is expected, if lamentable, that ideological movements label fellow travelers to be betrayers of the cause, or useful idiots, on certain occasions when they engage in honestly held disagreement. Even more insidious, however, is the notion that by criticizing someone's book, or questioning the findings of their research, or calling out their employer, one is betraying a friend, or even an entire circle of friends.
So much about Washington, D.C. incubates that fraught culture: its smallness, a social calendar organized around events with ideological affiliations, the combination of high rents, staffers right out of college, and free food provided by think tanks at lunchtime round tables, group house living, happy hour networking, the fuzzy line that separates journalism and activism, the people who cross back and forth without lengthening their commute, etc.
Shikha Dalmia, an atheist raised Hindu in India, smacks Hitchens around:
Despite years of sectarian bloodletting [between Muslims and Hindus], if Indians…take a benign view of the burqa, it is hardly because they are inherently more rational. It is because their secularism has been shaped by India's dominant religion–Hinduism–whose non-monotheistic ethos allows the space for multiple faiths. In this sense, Hinduism is perhaps more profoundly in sync with liberal tolerance than monotheistic faiths.
More crucially, however, there is nothing in Hinduism that makes an individual's spiritual salvation anyone's business except the individual herself. By contrast, Hitchens, et al, who have been raised in the cradle of a Christian civilization, have imbibed a certain comfort level with the crusading notion that people can–and ought to–be saved even against their will. Hence, it does not matter if Muslim women don't regard the burqa as oppressive. They have to be given sartorial liberation in the same way that the heathens need to be given spiritual liberation.
Just a quick thought about your meditation on the gospels, and your grappling with the relationship between doctrine and story, humanity and divinity.
It is worth pointing out that inasmuch as the doctrines of the 4th and 5th centuries sought to articulate Jesus’ “divinity” – that he was “God from God,” and so God’s very self-expression in our common history – those doctrines did as much to preserve the distinctiveness and integrity of his humanity, and so to place brakes upon any tendency, whether explicit or subtle, to blur the distinction of “God” and “creature.”
That Jesus did not go about declaring himself “God” throughout his ministry is in fact entirely keeping with the view that Jesus, precisely as a human person, is God’s “being with” and “being for” us. That God can do this is, of course, a statement of faith. That God has done this is, from the point of view of that same faith, utterly astonishing – and the greatest gesture of love imaginable. God becoming human is an event that leaves nothing out from our human experience: not suffering, not death, and not even the experience of God’s otherness.
In Jesus, God is “other” to God’s own self. And it is in the space of that otherness – that creatureliness – wherein our humanity dwells. The Incarnation means that God “assumes” what is and remains “other” to God. Which is why, from the point of the view of the article you cite, Jesus’ own doubt, fear, pain, and sense of abandonment is so essential to affirm. God knows and undergoes this too.
Another writes:
In the spirit of expanding the conversation I query whether the Incarnation as defined as the pre-existence of Jesus as God from eternity is indeed the core of the Christian faith. On this point see Hans Kung in On Being A Christian and Christianity.
Kung is persuasive to me where he argues that the core of the faith is Jesus, who was crucified and who God raised from the dead and who is now at God's right hand. In the earliest New Testament documents, the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark, as well as in the original Kerygma as analyzed by C. H. Dodd in The Apostolic Preaching, Jesus is the Anointed One, the Son, the Son of Man, the Servant of God. See for example Peter's sermon to the household of Cornelius in Acts 10.
Kung argues that the classical definitions of the Trinity and the Incarnation are the result of an interpretation of the evangelical facts in terms of Greek metaphysics – but that one may be a Christian without at the same time adopting Greek metaphysics. In my judgment, Kung's passionate interpretation of "Jesus from below" is compelling evidence for his thesis.
My real problem with New York is literary. Because the bulk of American literary agencies, publishing, and criticism occurs in New York, authors are rewarded for overindulging in New York as a setting. And when they set their novels in New York, it's considered acceptable to geographically structure the work in such a way that non-native readers are punished. Street intersections and local landmarks can be alluded to without the slightest regard for descriptive context because the people who are really important (the publishers and the agents and the critics) will get the reference. The rest of us, I guess, just have to stomach the void in setting this entails, and hope the author writes well enough for the characters to interact meaningfully in a vacuum.
Auster and Lethem are two authors whose writing I respect a great deal, but make excellent examples of this phenomenon. Though, in light of this, I've found that steering clear of the New York Review of Books and, really, any fiction published to acclaim within the last 10-20 years often saves me the trouble of leaving books unfinished.
Another:
The iconic example of NYC snobbery is early bar closing times — 2am in Boston, and 1am in Ptown. "What? They're closing?? You know, in New York, everything's open til at least 4!" Once, at Spiritus Pizza, I responded to the New Yorker's complaints thus: "I bet if you got in your car now, you could make it back to New York in time for last call. Not only would you be happier – so would I."
A few readers come to the city's defense. One writes:
I was raised here and know a lot of others who were. We all came out just fine and in fact were far more prepared for what the real world is REALLY like rather than the manufactured innocence and boredom of the suburbs. New York forces you to think on your feet, trust your gut, and do your homework.
One needs to work one's ass off to send their kids to private or parochial school if they can afford it. But being a kid in NY means being exposed to major institutions of learning and scholarship and some of the best brains in whatever industry. All through elementary and high school, we had field trips to the Museum of Natural History, the Met, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, and the MoMA. All we had to do was jump on the subway or walk around the corner. That shapes you and your expectations; I think for the better.
I would much rather be old in New York City vs. Florida or Arizona. You can spend the rest of your days mentally stimulated by art, lectures, world-class music and culture and still have the independence to be able to leave your home without being forced to drive and put your life and the lives of others at risk. I'd rather do that than golf.
Granted NYC is not the easiest place to live. But I think what comes off as narcissism is more about pride. If you can live in what is a congested, crowded and dirty place and still have an occasional smile on your face, you'd be proud of yourself too. New Yorkers are survivors. That's what makes us strive to be better.
Another:
I'm from a redneck town of about 50,000 people in Missouri, and I've lived in Brooklyn and worked in Manhattan for almost 7 years now. One of the things I love about New York is that there is really no such thing here as a big fish in a small pond (I'm sorry to use this cliche). A big fish in the pond of New York is, I don't know, Bjork. Most of the rest of us — at least those of us who are not fundamentally assholes to begin with — have been humbled by the realization that while we might have been one of the smartest and artiest 10 people in our hometowns, in New York there are hordes of us — tens of thousands of people the same age, with the same clothes and the same music and the same "obscure" books. Once this really sinks in, it makes one much less of a dick. And for this reason I'll take New Yorkers over St. Louisans or the coolest 20- and 30-somethings in Kansas City any day.
That interview would have gone a lot better for Rand Paul if Maddow had have just thrown her notes in the air and accused him of being a bigot, and a covert member of the Klan. That's what they want. And I don't simply mean conservatives–I mean people you disagree with. I know I've won a debate when my adversary says, "What the fuck type of name is Ta-Nuh-hah-see, anyway?" It translates to "I've got nothing." Much scarier is the opponent who takes your argument, with whatever nuances it may or may not possess, and politely disagrees with the argument as it is.
I try to do this in writing, with some success. Much more difficult, for me, is to do it in person. I'm always impressed by broadcast journalists who can, without getting angry, grab the point of contention and drive at it in a manner that is as civil as it is relentless. This is the art of killing softy, of quietly twisting the knife.
It's also, in my view, the answer to the cable news dilemma. Instead of going to FNC propaganda route, or the CNN fake "neutrality" route, you have a host who has a point of view but is open to other points of view, and can keep his or her cool under fire. Yesterday was a good day for cable news in that respect. Maddow offered a glimpse of a more useful future.
Michael Shermer goes after climate denial, evolution denial, Holocaust denial, AIDS denial, 9/11 denial, vaccine denial, and tobacco denial:
Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false. Weeding out the few kernels of wheat from the large pile of chaff requires extensive observation, careful experimentation and cautious inference. Science is scepticism and good scientists are sceptical.
Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it – sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.
Ronald Bailey adds biotech crop denialism, drug war denialism, and market denialism to the list. Debora MacKenzie also explores the subject:
[O]ther denialisms suggest psychology, not just ideology, is crucial. There is no obvious connection between conservatism and vaccine or AIDS denial, and flu denial was promulgated by a left-leaning group suspicious of the vaccine industry.
Nevertheless, some connections exist that hint at a wider agenda. For example, there is considerable overlap in membership between the vaccine and HIV deniers, says John Moore, an AIDS researcher at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. Both movements have massive but mysterious funding.
It is worth pointing out that inasmuch as the doctrines of the 4th and 5th centuries sought to articulate Jesus’ “divinity” – that he was “God from God,” and so God’s very self-expression in our common history – those doctrines did as much to preserve the distinctiveness and integrity of his humanity, and so to place brakes upon any tendency, whether explicit or subtle, to blur the distinction of “God” and “creature.” 
The Dish 