Lawyers, politicians, pundits, and logic

A number of years ago, I took a course in Modern Geometry. We spent several weeks studying deductive logic (and fallacious arguments), before looking at the geometries. When I had conversations outside of class during that semester and a period of time thereafter, I was struck by the number of times I realized that the conclusion a person was attempting to justify was formed by a fallacious argument. During friendly dialogue I seemed to be constantly thinking that the person's point did not follow from his/her previous statements.
I suppose lawyers prefer to use logic to persuade, but will resort to any and all fallacious arguments to "prove" their point or case. At least in a court of law the representative of the other viewpoint has the opportunity to cast doubt on the falsely reasoned conclusion.
A high percentage of politicians are/were lawyers and seem to relish a platform that is not restrained by a court of law. They no longer have to politely defer to a judge that has sustained an opponent's objection. Our elected officials, in their self fortifying arrogance, when confronted by a differing opinion often loose their composure and become irate (or feign anger) that anyone could disagree with their omnipotence.
Our news people and political pundits seem to be blurring the line between news and opinion, and are willing to stoop to any means to advance their agenda. When I teach, I feel I have succeeded if my students are not sure where I stand after a political discussion. Very few news people and their organizations attempt to report news without not too subtly interjecting their opinions and prejudices whether by choice of words, delivery nuances, or story content.
A recent editorial attempted to minimize the Tea Party by once again characterizing them as racists who cannot accept a shrinking white majority in our country. The lack of validity of the article is rendered secondary when repetition by other "news organizations" that treat the piece as enlightening, reduces the true purpose of and reason for the Tea Party. One might think that these elitists are so far removed from us in "fly over country" that they actually believe their racist propaganda. But I submit that they are very aware of the absurdity of this idea (and others), and choose to use repetitions of falsehoods to mislead those that have been taught what and not how to think by our education system.
Once again I am left with the same two conclusions. The spiritual answer is that however frustrated with our world we become, God is in control and a better world is promised to those of us that are believers. The secular answer is a lifetime of continuing education that comprises not only the accumulation of facts, but also the ability to find and disseminate information, and the reasoning power to think for ourselves.

Free Market Healthcare - Economics 101

2700 pages of government interference is supposed to fix the problems created by past government interference? If one researches the financial meltdown (or was paying attention when it happened), one finds that liberal meddling into safeguard requirements for loan qualification caused the banks to loan money to clearly unqualified customers. Why are we in such a rush to dismantle free market forces and grow a government that has enough trouble handling the areas that the Constitution allows?
Do away with the government requirements for health insurance policies to cover a list of many unnecessary and often unwanted by the customer procedures and drugs, and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Competition will drive prices lower and keep them there. We could custom fit are needs to our policies - certainly of portion of the millions without healthcare would choose to purchase a low cost, high deductible, catastrophic insurance if it were offered. Those that do not would still be subsidized indirectly by those that do, but solutions that illegally require purchase are also subsidized.
As large as this bill is, it pales in comparison with the largess of government control that it predicates. To assume that our elected officials are more intelligent than those poor in the cities and those primarily in 'fly-over' country is to negate the collective intelligences of the people. It is time for us to realize our individual life experiences and education often deem us as having better understanding and better solutions than the arrogant, patronizing, self serving representatives that have forgotten they are public servants. We, as a nation are at a crossroads in our history. Do we continue down the path of more and more interference in all aspects of our lives until we become drones that exist to maintain a massive and all pervasive, all controlling government, or do we reverse course in an attempt to recapture the dream of our forefathers of a nation of individual liberty and personal responsibility, a nation of people that have unlimited opportunities and yet maintain the capability, through their compassion and unity of purpose, to find viable solutions for those less fortunate?