Insult to Injury

Forgive my coarse language, but I had a couple of WTF moments yesterday.  Before I get to that, here's a portion of a letter mailed by a telephone company to a subscriber:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mrs. XXXXXXX,

We have made repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact you by phone to inform you that your line has been disconnected.  If you wish to pay the past due balance and have your line reconnected, please reply to this letter or call us on the phone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOX NEWS yesterday aired a spot showing a gathering of residents of a small mid-western town.  The people were welcoming home a young Iraq veteran who had lost his arm and both legs in an IED explosion.  The reporter pointed out that the generous townspeople had managed to collect $50,000.00 in donations to pay for the soldier's medical expenses. WTF !!!!!!!!

Later, FOX NEWS reported that the International Monetary Fund has recently had to pay out so much in relief to failing nations like Greece, Ireland and Portugal, that it (the IMF) is now looking for approximately $3 trillion dollars in bailout money (the largest portion of which would need to come from U.S. taxpayers).  WAIT !!! - wasn't it the IMF (and its private banker owners) who looted all our money in the first place through fractional reserve banking and usury?  WTF !!!!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, I am starting to get befuddled by some of the circular reasoning surrounding polygamy.  Some of it goes something like this:

"I resent these polygamists who break the law, take multiple wives and go on TV to parade their criminal lifestyle in our faces.  I resent them because this should not be allowed, and they are breaking the law!"

Polygamy should be against the law because I resent it.  It is offensive.  It is against everything we are trying to do here in America."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
(T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)