Sally Kohn Wrong in So Many Ways

In her Daily Beast article, Sally Kohn makes a number of fallacious and irrelevant arguments. Such as

For the Court to even get to its ruling that the contraception mandate "substantially burdens" the exercise of religion, it has to believe this bunk science.

Well, no it doesn't. If religious people believe something, even if it's untrue, that's their belief. The court wasn't trying to decide whether these were, in fact, abortifacients, only if the beliefs of the employers gave them the right to deny providing them.

Moreover, in a free and secular society, birth control is about medicine and science and personal health, not religion.

Birth control may be about these things, but it is also about religion, since it's an important part of many people's belief system. Also, the left continues to try to make this about birth control, but it's more about whether birth control has to be provided, not whether it's available.

If you think going to the mall is like going to church, that makes sense. To everyone else, it's nuts.

Logical Fallacy Alert. It looks as a combination black or white fallacy and straw man.

Keep reading, there are even more fallacies, such as "Let's all pray to the corporate gods who control our elections that someday we have a Supreme Court that values the American people more than big business."

I love how the Left imbues the Supreme Court with such power. They want the Court to decide everything on a moral basis. She, of course, doesn't debate the law at all. What does that matter? The Supreme Court has given power to corporations! That's just wrong!

Scary...

"There’s more at stake here than due process. It’s public safety."
--Jim Pasco, Executive Director of the country's largest police union:

It's frightening, but not altogether surprising that some among the police believe that public safety trumps due process.

source: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cops-see-reason-concern-landmark-cellphone-ruling-n140771

Overreacting to the Supreme Court

I'm trying to go through the recent Affirmative Action case opinions, so I can summarize. Surprisingly, I'm leaning more toward the dissent than I expected, but I haven't finished reading it yet.

For those who haven't read much detail, as Kennedy said, the decision was not about affirmative action, it's more complex than that. Basically the question is whether banning affirmative action at the state level, powers were taken from the schools' trustees and it became more difficult for minorities to enact advantageous (or outlaw disadvantageous) policies.

Anyway, in this article, The Nation's Patricia Williams is, predictably, upset. Here's what I take issue with.

The bottom line? What is expressly permissible as a matter of the US Constitution is now forbidden in Michigan. Not only that, it has removed affirmative action in Michigan from the democratic process.

First, there is a long list of things permissible by the US Constitution that are forbidden by states. Basically, all state legislation does is restrict your freedoms that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have. States say you can't drive faster than 65 mph, where does it say that in the Constitution? States won't allow you to drink, that's something that is "permissible as a matter of the US Constitution."

Not only that, but even easier to contest, it hasn't been removed from the democratic process. If anything, it's more a part of the democratic process. It was voted in by a majority of Michigan voters. Before the vote, it was decided by trustees appointed by the governor. Used to be, direct elections were considered more democratic. I guess Patricia would like to repeal the 17th Amendment and let her legislature (or possibly the trustees to Michigan's schools) choose the US Senators.

Finally, she says

But consider another scenario. You have one place to fill and two applicants—a white kid from Grosse Pointe, and a black kid who has risen from the ashes of Detroit’s segregated, postindustrial dystopia to achieve the same scores. Put on the blindfold! We don’t see color here. According to Section 26, it’s unlawful to weigh the black kid’s distinct experiences because that would constitute either an act of discrimination against the majority white population or a grant of preferential treatment for minorities.

No Conservative I know believes a kid's experiences shouldn't be weighed, just not the color of his skin. I believe it wrong to assume that because someone's black, they've had a harder time than every white person. Granted, in most circumstances, that's true, but not everyone. Experiences should be weighed, not skin color.

Reproductive Rights?

The Left has been extraordinary at coming up with positive sounding names for their causes--affirmative action, pro-choice, social security, the affordable care act.

In this Rolling Stone article, Lauren Rankin discusses some of the "attacks on reproductive rights."

First off, I don't think we should call issues dealing with abortion reproductive rights. These people are fighting for the right to not reproduce. Who believes that when I assert my gun rights, I'm talking about my right to not own a gun? It's a bizarre manipulation.

Of course, she never presents the other side of the argument, but I'm most interested in issue 4-"Louisiana bill would keep brain-dead pregnant women on life support against family's wishes."

"This bill essentially turns brain-dead pregnant women into incubators against their will, compounding the trauma that their families are likely experiencing."

Well, I don't dispute that the women would essentially be incubators, but I'm not sure it's against their will. I doubt most women say what they would want to happen if they faced this decision. Rankin goes on to say that in Louisiana, the law would not "[supersede] pregnant women's 'do not resuscitate' orders..., [it] would still override the family's wishes." Well, then whose rights are being attacked? These clearly aren't reproductive rights. These are the family's control over someone else's rights. What if the woman wanted her baby to come to term? Oh, well, says Rankin, the family's rights to abort allow the fetus to die naturally supersede anything else. It seems that Rankin thinks that not only the mother has the right to abort, but the family does, too.

The Art of Not Answering

I'm sure I'm biased, but it seems that Democrats are better at this than Republicans. I'm confident that it's the most important asset of a Press Secretary, though.

Here's Jay Carney deftly dodging. 

Really read his response, though. Major Garret points out that the US has acted (however weakly), yet Russia continues moving forward on Ukraine.

Carney has two responses: "The US can't force action simply by saying stop, and we will continue along the same path we are on." The first is a typical Obama tactic--the straw man argument. The second is devoid of information.

A Perfect Storm

I'm really tired of the over-use of the phrase A Perfect Storm, but this is just ridiculous! The Snowden revelation was not a perfect storm at all. He understood and took advantage of flaws within the system. A perfect storm is when rare events all happen at once. Clapper is just trying to hide the CIA's errors in the matter.

A Coup at the CBO?

The CBO has recently released three conservative-leaning conclusions. This from the same organization that predicts jobs saved from stimulus based on economic models based on Keynesian principles.

Obamacare reduces incentives to work for subsidized beneficiaries
Minimum Wage costs jobs
Premium Support could offer same benefits for lower costs to taxpayers (and potentially consumers)

I wonder what's going on over there.