Wednesday Highlights

Good morning to all.

  1. So, why blog? One reason.
  2. Stating the obvious.
  3. Boxing and the underside.
  4. So, the term “food stamp Presidents” fits Mr Obama or Mr Bush better? Which do you think the media savants figure fits better? Guess then check.
  5. Oooh, the horror of going through the tests in a pretty standard 40+ physical. Gosh that’s so not very mean. Oddly enough nobody (on the left) seems to take the obvious freedom tack, i.e., the government monopoly on prescription and medication availability is not so necessary in the information age.
  6. Imitation and flattery?
  7. Sea levels and the last century.
  8. The “wants women to not be able to protect themselves” segment of the left, who remains apparently unaware that, for example, concealed carry has zero impact on the number of shooting¬†incidents (or for that matter that range shooting is fun). I was surprised myself to learn that “open carry in bars” does not lead to more shooting. On the other side of the question, it’s not really that surprising a conclusion coming from the guy you can’t figure out whether allowing his own birth was a harm done to him or not.
  9. A city car, how much do you want to bet it won’t be available here?
  10. Tool builders on top.

6 responses to “Wednesday Highlights

  1. Oddly enough nobody (on the left) seems to take the obvious freedom tack, i.e., the government monopoly on prescription and medication availability is not so necessary in the information age.

    How would you approach this view with abortion? Clearly the purpose of the proposed law is to try to tip the scales against abortion by adding on unnecessary tests and making doctors read pre-written speeches by pro-lifers. Yet if you ‘break the monopoly’ then gov’t has no influence here as anyone can ‘be a doctor’ so there’s no medical license to threaten to take away from docs who don’t want to play the political games.

  2. Boonton,
    I’m not sure I follow. I’ve suggested you take the tack of much diminishing the list of prescription drugs, or to do away with the prescription/prescribed drug list altogether.

    You need a license to drive. You need a license to purchase firearms or ammo. Apparently any notion that licensing or requirements might be placed on abortion is confusing to the left. But their arguments for abortion, as noted, do not travel to freedom of medicine, i.e., in the case of prescriptions for contraceptions they attack religious freedom and never notice the prescriptive power/overreach. That was my question. Why does the former occur to you before the latter?

  3. Apparently any notion that licensing or requirements might be placed on abortion is confusing to the left.

    Abortion drugs are regulated by the FDA. Last time I checked, a person could not legally perform an abortion unless they were a licensed doctor.

    in the case of prescriptions for contraceptions they attack religious freedom and never notice the prescriptive power/overreach

    What religious freedom issue? Is there a religion with a doctrine that requires its members to practice contraception not prescribed by a doctor? Perhaps an offbeat sect of Christian Scientists?

  4. Boonton,

    Is there a religion with a doctrine that requires its members to practice contraception not prescribed by a doctor?

    Secular atheism chafes at being required to pay for its contraception. You knew that.

  5. It does? Where?

  6. Boonton,
    It’s in their creed. :D

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>