Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog
Fearless Philosophy For Free Minds: Free Minds Wondering (May 2005)

Friday, May 27, 2005

Free Minds Wondering (May 2005)

Repent and Vote Democrat No More
A pastor of a Haywood County, North Carolina Baptist Church told his congregation that Democrats are no longer welcome in his church. More power to him. Just one little catch…his church’s tax exempt status should be removed immediately! I will say the same thing for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and all the rest of you who dodge paying taxes by using your ‘ministry’ to be exempt while pushing a political agenda. For that matter, all churches should pay their part of the tax burden. After all, didn’t Jesus say (I’m paraphrasing): “Pay unto Caesar what is Caesar’s; pay unto God what is Gods,” Hmm? Just a thought.

The Most Dangerous Logical Fallacy
Have you ever heard advertisements that say “A million [fill in the blank]s can’t be wrong.” What a dangerous, disastrous failure of logic. What word did you think of to place in the blank? What if I filled in the blank with Nazis, Communists, Holocaust deniers, trekkies, or Elvis impersonators? In Latin, this logical fallacy is known as argumentum ad populum; translated in English it is called “Appeal to Popularity.” It seems the more that our government and our government schools teach us that our government is based on the whims of the majority of Americans (a democracy) rather than a constitutional republic based on the rule of law, the more people seem to fall for this fallacy that is as old as Western Civilization. Brad Warbiany, The Unrepentant one, has saved me the trouble of writing a long post explaining the dangers of democracy (thanks Brad). Not only can’t a majority (even a super majority lest a filibuster need to be broken) of people be wrong, it is very likely.

Fuzzy Math
Remember during one of the 2000 presidential debates when W responded to Bore’s numbers as ‘fuzzy math’ and Leftists everywhere got a good chuckle? This must be an example of what W was talking about: on factcheck.org, the researchers studied the claims made by Democrats that Bush’s privatized Social Security accounts would harm most investors. Here is the summary of what factcheck.org found

“Democrats have been using a web-based "calculator" to generate individualized answers to the question, "How much will you lose under Bush privatization plan?" For young, low-wage workers it projects cuts of up to 50% in benefits. And a $1-million TV advertising campaign is amplifying the claim, saying, "Look below the surface (of Bush's plan) and you'll find benefit checks cut almost in half."

In fact, the calculator is rigged. We find it is based on a number of false assumptions and deceptive comparisons. For one thing, it assumes that stocks will yield average returns of only 3 percent per year above inflation. The historical average is close to 7 percent.

The calculator's authors claim that they use the same assumption used by the Congressional Budget Office. Actually, CBO projects a 6.8 percent gain.”

What? Political groups lie? Say it isn’t so!

Conscience Clause
On my February 10th post you may remember I made the following comment:

“The Arizona Legislature is trying to pass a bill that would allow pharmacists to deny filling prescriptions if the pharmacist is personally opposed to a particular drug. Provisions have been made that pharmacists cannot deny birth control to customers (which is part of why this bill was presented to begin with), but the 'Plan B' and the so-called abortion pill are fair game. This is crazy! What right do you, Mr. Pharmacist have to deny an adult their drugs because of your moral issues! The choice is the individuals; this is a personal matter. Shame on you Arizona if you allow this bill to pass.”

Here’s an update. The Arizona Legislature did pass the bill but the governor vetoed it. Whew! I suppose a clarification of my position on this issue is in order. If it is the policy of the employer not to sell such a prescription, that’s the employer’s prerogative. If, however, a pharmacy’s employee refuses to fill the prescription, then the employer has every right to fire the insubordinate employee. Also, the pharmacy’s policy should be posted in plain view so the customer doesn’t waste time trying to fill a prescription which is not available. This would be no different than a convenience store employee refusing to sell customers cigarettes, beer, and porn for moral reasons.

Drumgurl A.K.A the Redneck Feminist has written a great series on this issue. I encourage everyone to check it out.

Judge Janice Brown
Finally, some details are being reported about some of Bush’s judicial nominees. So far I have researched a little bit about Judge Janice Brown. From what I am finding so far, she seems to be a fine choice (she doesn’t appear to be a Bork clone at least). My first step was to find out why Republicans favor her as a choice and why Democrats are so opposed.

First I looked at the Leftist blog Daily KOS Crystal Patterson’s May 10th article: Janice Rogers Brown - Turning Back the Clock on Decades of Social Progess. From this article, I learned just about every objection the Left has to Judge Brown. As I read her talking points against Brown, to me from my Libertarian viewpoint they read like selling points. Rather than me re-list all of her talking points, please read her article and tell me why all of those reasons should be reasons to reject Janice Brown to the Federal court.

It seems to me that what is getting Crystal’s panties in a bunch is the fact that Judge Brown dares to say that much of FDR’s New Deal was (is) unconstitutional. No wonder the Dems don’t want her in the high court!

I also read Judge Brown’s speech in for the Federalist Society titled: "A Whiter Shade of Pale": Sense and Nonsense — The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics. The speech gives the reader some great insight into her judicial philosophy. If these are her principles, she certainly has my support.

No Reverence for the Quran Here
Let’s suppose for a moment the Newsweek story about the Quran flushing was true. So what! We are supposed to care about the feelings of the very people who desecrate our flag, burn in effigy pictures of our leaders (Republican or Democrat, makes no difference), fly planes into our buildings, want to destroy our way of life, treat women like cattle, use children as bombs, and generally do not respect life whether ‘infidel’ or ‘non-infidel?’ The Quran is nothing more than another ‘wholly’ book of lies designed to deny the rights of the individual. Until more Muslims can demonstrate tolerance rather than terrorism, Islam is not a religion worthy of my tolerance. As far as I’m concerned, how about another flush?

Memorial Day
Don’t forget to remember those who have and are serving our country to keep us free. The American soldier not only risks his/her life for us, but also sacrifices time he or she would otherwise spend with his/her family. To all the soldiers out there who are serving this country…Thank You.

1 Comments:

Blogger StaticCompost said...

More power to him? I don't no where this man gets off, he thinks he has the right to restrict people's freedom of religon based on their political standings? Iam not a republican or a democrat, but I find this to be pure ignorance. What are we without our differences? We are nothing, we need to have these oppositional differences between one another. We should embrace, not restrict our opponents freedoms.

3:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Hit Counters
devry university