Rebane's Ruminations
May 2013
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 17 May 2013.]

OK, if you’ve been habitually glued to the lamestream media, you probably just recently heard of the murder trial of late term abortionist and now convicted hat trick killer Dr Kermit Gosnell.  According to court testimony Gosnell ran a lucrative back alley abortion clinic right out in the open, visible from the street, and accessible from the sidewalks of Philadelphia.  His dilapidated storefront, cynically named ‘Women’s Medical Society’ with logos of a happily bouncing toddler between mom and dad, had not been inspected by a pro-abortion city health department for more than 15 years.   During this time the sleazy and filthy walk-in was the scene of hundreds, perhaps thousands of murders until some of his employees simply could no longer take it.

Pro-Choice
Gosnell was convicted for killing three live babies out of the uncounted thousands that actually died at his hands during the many years his death factory was in operation.  Babies, that he or his staff were unable to kill twelve inches before the point at which they exited the womb, were then immediately dispatched after their births.  These live human beings, as witnessed and testified by Gosnell’s workers, were then quickly murdered by jamming scissors into the backs of their necks to cut their spinal chords.  The defense unbelievably argued that the delivered and visibly viable babies were already dead, but it left hanging the question as to why they then had to be killed again.

Now consider that our current pro-choice understanding is that a baby, a universally acknowledged human being, a human who could go on to live a productive and rewarding life, can be just twelve inches and seconds from having been designated a fetus.  And as a fetus, it is legally only a lump of protoplasm liable for summary execution by one of a dozen ways.  Gosnell’s preferred method was an in utero lethal injection that did not always do the job.  But not to worry, the clinic’s ‘medical staff’ was twelve inches and seconds away, ready and waiting with the scissors.

So here’s the logic of the matter – if twelve inches separate a live baby from a formerly live fetus, does that not also mean that twelve inches separate a live fetus from being a live baby, a live human being?  This is what the legalization of late term abortions comes down to in our civilized society.  Twelve inches and seconds between an innocuous clinical procedure and a prosecutable murder.

I apologize for the brevity of this commentary, but there simply isn’t anything more to say beyond reminding you that there are still many more Gosnells out there.

My name is Rebane, and I expand on this and related themes on NCTV and on georgerebane.com where the transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively.  However these views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

Posted in , ,

51 responses to “Fetus + 12 inches = Baby”

  1. earlcrabb Avatar

    Here’s a piece by Kirsten Powers, one of the last honest Democrats, that addresses this issue…
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/16/yes-there-is-a-gosnell-trial-coverup-by-the-big-news-organizations.html

    Like

  2. fish Avatar
    fish

    ……had not been inspected by a pro-abortion city health department for more than 15 years.
    See….this is why the sequester is so destructive. It takes critical funds from our public servants and makes it impossible for them to do their jobs.

    Like

  3. earlcrabb Avatar

    I wasn’t aware that the sequester took effect fifteen years ago.

    Like

  4. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    So George,
    I am with you on the late term abortions unless there are some pretty extraordinary circumstances that would for sure take the life of the mother if brought to term.
    Do you support those babies after they are born or do you want the parents and child to fend for themselves? Health care, day care, preschool, public school, after school extra curriculum, higher education? What I have found with pro birthers, pro-life is anti capital punishment, is once the baby is born then to hell with that human being. If parents cannot afford to take care of them properly shame on the parents but where does that leave the “universally acknowledged human being, a human who could go on to live a productive and rewarding life.”

    Like

  5. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Here is a good example of a pro-life argument against capital punishment.
    http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/nun-makes-case-against-death-penalty-in-pittsburgh-687982/
    Capital punishment denies a person the ability to redeem themselves. Isn’t that what we ultimately want? As much as I would have liked to have seen the deaths Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Pinochet, Stalin, Idi Amin, and modern day Bashir among others my position still stands that the worst punishment for all of these murderers would be to live with themselves and their thoughts only. Either redemption would take place or they would live the remainder of their lives in misery.

    Like

  6. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 643am – Ah yes, here come the collectivist ideals. No, I don’t believe putting the mother and kid on the public dole. We’ve been doing that for forty some years, and all it has done is create a stupid and poor permanent underclass. “If the parents cannot afford to take care them properly”, then private charities may step in to help.
    If not, it leaves the kid up shit creek. But we have to first admit that government has not solved the problem today, and to solve it requires massive rethink of how progressive policies are being destructively applied today. We start with a massive overhaul of our tax system. (Perhaps a good time to start is today with the latest discoveries of widespread political corruption in the IRS.)

    Like

  7. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Love the fetus hate the child, nice. The number one reason to seek an abortion is economics. Yet you don’t want people a guaranteed living wage if they work full time hours. You don’t want daycare so parents can afford to work. You want American workers to compete for wages against developing third world workers. Quite the society you are creating. Have you ever read a Christmas Carol by Dickens? That is the society and nation you are advocating.

    Like

  8. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    In the mean time, while we wait for a libertarian Utopia, the kid is up shit creek.

    Like

  9. fish Avatar
    fish

    I wasn’t aware that the sequester took effect fifteen years ago.
    Ooooh sarcasm impaired…..my apologies.

    Like

  10. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I can see why there are more suicides in the progressive wing of western humanity. Ben’s view of a child is very skewed. Since 50% of the American people don;t pay federal taxes and Planned Parenthood gets a half billion a year from the feds, it would appear to me the working stiffs/taxpayers are already doing Ben’s work. The half of the non payers are getting the baby sucked out for free.
    I was recalling the argument a few years ago aboutsome tree (I can’t remember the name of it) that was purported to be a potential cure for breast cancer and the liberals were trying to make it a crime to cut them down in California. Their argument (well one of them) was that the tree could save a life that might someday find a cure for cancer! They do not give the same right to the baby as they do the tree. They are simply warped.

    Like

  11. fish Avatar
    fish

    Do you support those babies after they are born or do you want the parents and child to fend for themselves? Health care, day care, preschool, public school, after school extra curriculum, higher education? What I have found with pro birthers, pro-life is anti capital punishment, is once the baby is born then to hell with that human being. If parents cannot afford to take care of them properly shame on the parents but where does that leave the “universally acknowledged human being, a human who could go on to live a productive and rewarding life.”
    Well no there’s no need to support those who receive a surgical scissor to the base of the brain. There’s birth control…pretty sure that the doyenne (Sandra Fluke) of high dollar contraception was all the rage during the run up to PelosiCare and it’s been available for 50 years or so. Surprised that you haven’t heard of it.
    There’s adoption….how bout seeing if someone else wants it before you spin the poor kids noggin off it’s little spine (Texas this time. No word just yet on whether or not any pickled fetus feet have been found ala Dr. Gosnell)
    Really though, it sounds as though you are advocating that these children become state property….is this your argument?
    Do you support those babies after they are born
    Why? Are they his children?
    or do you want the parents and child to fend for themselves?
    Like that which happened from the dawn of man. Human beings reproducing and taking care off their offspring. Who’da thunk?!
    What I have found so entertaining about you Emery in my brief time here is that you are so fabulously and reliably predictable. Keep up the good work!

    Like

  12. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    fish, I just love your smackdown of the left. What a hoot!

    Like

  13. George Rebane Avatar

    re BenE’s 829am – “… hate the child, nice.”??! There’s another collectivist poster child of logic. If you don’t want to pay for the care of another person’s offspring, you hate them – wow! That means that almost all of us “hate” almost all the world’s children. Is ‘hate’ like ‘racist’, another one of those semantic life preservers for progressives when intellect fails?

    Like

  14. TheMikeyMcD Avatar
    TheMikeyMcD

    Everyone living opposite the working end of a godverment gun is Ben’s ideal (slavery).
    Abstinence works, I’ve tried it (another perk is no STD’s!).
    Of course the progressives believe that ‘the poor’ are too stupid to cross their legs… ‘the poor’ need godverment.

    Like

  15. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    No need for abstinence when you have Saran Wrap in the kitchen drawer!

    Like

  16. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Gals could always hold aspirin between their knees as Foster Friess suggested!

    Like

  17. George Rebane Avatar

    Bob Crabb’s 121pm comment under ‘Ruminations – 16may13’ takes to task a GOP Virginia legislators 2009 attempt to stop the Gosnell type late term abortions. Salon.com quotes the bill’s germain language as
    “The text of Obenshain’s bill:
    [SB962] requires that when a fetal death occurs without medical attendance upon the mother at or after the delivery or abortion, the mother or someone acting on her behalf, within 24 hours, report the fetal death, location of the remains, and identity of the mother to the local or state police or sheriff’s department of the city or county where the fetal death occurred. The bill also specifies that no one shall remove, destroy, or otherwise dispose of any remains without the express authorization of law-enforcement officials or the medical examiner, and that a violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.”
    Given the recent trial and verdict in the Gosnell case reported in my post, how should we look at such a new prospective law knowing that Fetus + 12 inches = Baby.

    Like

  18. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    You want the government to force women into having a child she or they cannot afford. Since you want to force someone else to give birth and raise a human being who doesn’t have the financial means to do so and you actually promote policies that would make it even harder for her or the father to earn enough to provide for the child as well. That is where I get love the fetus, hate the child. Want to reduce abortions support and promote policies that allow full time workers to Earn a Living Wage.
    liv·ing wage
    Noun
    A wage that is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living.
    nor·mal
    /ˈnôrməl/
    Adjective
    Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
    Noun
    The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

    Like

  19. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 558pm – “You want the government to force women into having a child she or they cannot afford.” Whatever you use for your attempts at logic should be returned to the manufacturer for a full refund.
    It is only progressive policies that have destroyed the poor (predominantly black) families, and encouraged young uneducated, ignorant, and unmarried females to get pregnant so as to immediately receive in perpetuity a government income stream. And as long as such policies are a reliable source of Democrat voters, they will continue to be extended and ‘improved’ year after year.

    Like

  20. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    George, just for the record there is no ability to “receive in perpetuity a government income stream”. The Cap on TANF funding is 48 months.

    Like

  21. George Rebane Avatar

    SteveF 621pm – Were perpetuity (or until the youngest becomes of age) not a reality, then they wouldn’t do it as has been reported by everyone from ’60 Minutes’ to Glenn Beck. What may be confusing you is that there are overlapping and conjoining welfare programs which keep the checks coming for a lot longer than 48 months.

    Like

  22. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Do you want abortions to made illegal?
    I find it funny that you and your RR cohorts like to label things on the left as conspiracies and then you throw out “It is only progressive policies that have destroyed the poor (predominantly black) families, and encouraged young uneducated, ignorant, and unmarried females to get pregnant so as to immediately receive in perpetuity a government income stream. And as long as such policies are a reliable source of Democrat voters, they will continue to be extended and ‘improved’ year after year.”
    Is there proof of this wild accusation? I guess myself and my black friends missed the classes on how to get pregnant and collect welfare. Check out the facts on Unintended Pregnancies. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html
    Rand Paul tried to throw this sort of reasoning out at Howard University and was pretty much considered a joke. Why he thought Howard University would be like talking to a Kentucky Tea Party is beyond me. Educated black or African Americans are some of the best commentators on politics in America. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/vp/51500273#51500273
    Todd would like minute 2:25. He seems to think nobody understands why blacks in the US were Republicans before the civil right and voting right acts. Basically anybody who is paying attention to history or politics understands this except hard liner “conservatives”. This is based on previous discussion with him.
    Another fact that you seem to be incredibly misinformed on is that whites have the larger number of people who are poor and on government assistance in the USA than blacks. Since you have no understanding of poverty in 2013 America, I am not surprised. Actually hispanic is first in sheer numbers and whites are second and blacks are third.
    Class warfare doesn’t discriminate, too much. Poor have little money and virtually no excess money to bribe candidates or parties so they have no representation in a government that is up for sale to the highest bidder. The wealthy and large corporations have the most money and they have the vast majority of representation despite being less than 1% of the population.

    Like

  23. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 813pm – reading skills are showing again; who labels what “conspiracies”?? The destruction of (especially black) families through liberal welfare programs since the Great Society programs is a matter of record, most certainly there was no conspiracy here, it was all done purposefully in the open. Even Obama acknowledged the impact of government dole on the creation of dependent poor people. But since the progressives are blind to it all, we’ll soon have half the country encouraged to file for food stamps.
    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/09/president-obama-admits-welfare-encourages-dependency/
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/25/7k-worth-of-food-stamps-per-person-the-state-where-this-is-happening-might-surprise-you/

    Like

  24. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    BenE 5:58PM – There is no normal standard of living. There is, instead, a broad spectrum of living standards. Your argument for a so-called living wage therefore fails because it is based on an unachievable outcome.
    Your argument also fails because it has been shown time and again that attempts to legislate economic outcomes always have negative consequences that are presumably unintended but result in actually harming those they intend to help. The minimum wage is a fine example of just such a thing.
    I understand that you desire a world that at all times meets your definition of fair and that guarantees desired outcomes. The plain and simple fact is that our world does not work that way and no matter how profusely your heart bleeds you can replace hard work and being responsible for oneself with government handout programs only if you are willing to damage those you are trying to help.
    It is not that conservatives don’t care about the children who would have otherwise been aborted. Instead, we care about them enough to want to avoid further damaging their (and everyone’s) world by continuing practices that clearly do not and cannot work.

    Like

  25. fish Avatar
    fish

    liv·ing wage
    Noun
    A wage that is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living.
    nor·mal
    /ˈnôrməl/
    Adjective
    Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
    Noun
    The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

    I don’t really expect a response to this much like I never received a response when I asked you (I don’t have the exact language so bear with me) the following question : What percentage of an individuals income should be taken to adequately provide government services?
    Feel free to provide one.
    Since we are on to a different topic: What level of income meets your definition of “Living Wage”?

    Like

  26. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Michael,
    Just because it hasn’t worked doesn’t mean we don’t keep trying. A living wage has never been tried in the US. Here is an excerpt from a Theodore Roosevelt speech in 1912. A century later we are still trying to get it.
    “We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living–a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit a reasonable saving for old age.
    Hours are excessive if they fail to afford the worker sufficient time to recuperate and return to his work thoroughly refreshed. We hold that the night labor of women and children is abnormal and should be prohibited; we hold that the employment of women over forty-eight hours per week is abnormal and should be prohibited. We hold that the seven-day working week is abnormal, and we hold that one day of rest in seven should be provided by law. We hold that the continuous industries, operating twenty-four hours out of twenty-four, are abnormal, and where, because of public necessity or for technical reasons (such as molten metal), the twenty-four hours must be divided into two shifts of twelve hours or three shifts of eight, they should by law be divided into three of eight.”

    Like

  27. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Fish,
    For starters the minimum wage should be at least $10 at the moment. That isn’t a living wage but it would at least bring us to par with the late 1960’s in spending power.
    Here is website dedicated to raising the minimum wage.
    http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/demographics

    Like

  28. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Living wages are paid already by the vast majority of the American business community without regard to the minimum wage. Most companies consider a healty, trained, motivated and loyal workforce a key business asset, and I have not read a single business plan for a mid sized company in the last 5 years that has not emphasized workforce development (and I’ve read more than 2 dozen Sierra Nevada business plans in that time period).
    The issue is more about rising wage standards and job training in traditionally low paying service sectors to boost both wages and productivity simultaneously. To do that increases in the minimum wage are needed, but that alone will not be enough. If service sector wages are to increase productivity has to increase as well, and that happens through job training, the application of technology and rising education standards for the entry level workforce.
    As George has pointed out here many times (and in a rare place where I basically agree with him) the application of technology to business is driving displacement of low skilled workers, so some mechanism needs to be in place to transition those workers to new fields as they open up, and create the flexibility and adaptability within our workforce necessary for them to make the shift.
    In my eyes this is an entirely appropriate role for government working in partnership with industry, workers, and educational institutions. . Wages rise as productivity and wealth increases, so our focus should shift in my humble opinion, to creating and supporting the private sector business models that apply new technology, increase workforce skills and knowledge, and create living wages.
    But WTF do I know, according half the people here I am a communist.

    Like

  29. fish Avatar
    fish

    For starters the minimum wage should be at least $10 at the moment. That isn’t a living wage but it would at least bring us to par with the late 1960’s in spending power.
    It seems you’re being overly generous. Fine if it’s your money I suppose.
    $1.30 in 1969 had the same buying power as $8.41 in 2013.
    Annual inflation over this period was 4.33%.

    http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

    Like

  30. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Two things, not all assistance programs work but that doesn’t mean you get rid of all of them. Also, my reading skills are just fine.
    “It is only progressive policies that have destroyed the poor (predominantly black) families, and encouraged young uneducated, ignorant, and unmarried females to get pregnant so as to immediately receive in perpetuity a government income stream.”
    The way that sentence reads was the “progressive policies” were designed to encourage poor people to get pregnant and on social welfare programs. If that is true then you are promoting a huge conspiracy.
    The other thing is the word “only”, what you’re saying is no conservative policy has ever destroyed poor (predominately black) families?
    You can’t be that dumb, can you?

    Like

  31. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Steve “Commie” Frisch,
    You are exactly correct. As productivity increases so should wages. It hasn’t happened for 35 – 40 years. Productivity has skyrocketed but wages have remained stagnant, which has created this huge gap that was filled with easy credit.

    Like

  32. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Fish,
    Actually according to my inflation calculator minimum wage at $1.60 1968 would be equivalent to $10.69 2013.
    http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

    Like

  33. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    So George, do you want to make abortions illegal?
    Yes or no

    Like

  34. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 848am – I suppose you are an exemplar of progressive economics. Your “as productivity increases so should wages”, is beyond daft. Productivity = output/cost. If you keep increasing the labor component of cost as better methods and technology reduce labor input, then you will not gain in productivity. Capice?
    Your 854pm apparently embodies all the complexity that you can handle on this topic. In the attempt to keep my answer equally simple – I oppose abortion of fetuses that can be brought to term ex utero with current medical technology.

    Like

  35. fish Avatar
    fish

    Actually according to my inflation calculator minimum wage at $1.60 1968 would be equivalent to $10.69 2013.
    Okay. We’ll use your number. Your recipients will still always be chasing your “living wage” lifestyle I suspect.

    Like

  36. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    BenE 729AM – So, Roosevelt didn’t get it either. There is no normal wage and therefore can be no subnormal wage.

    Like

  37. Paul Emery Avatar

    George, explain to me why you use of Goshnell conviction is not an example of “issues activism” that you cite as a liberal trait during our discussion on gun control?
    “Their stated objective is to reduce gun violence, or more specifically, gun deaths. And the statistics they cite, along with descriptions of horrific episodes of murder and mayhem, are designed to grossly simplify the issue, and get the listener to focus on events that everyone wants to prevent, and wishes that had never happened. Liberal academics have identified this common and effective tack of public debate as ‘issues activism’, basically a bottom up approach that the Left uses to induce the desired public opinion.

    Like

  38. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1019am – what seems to elude liberals in such discussions is the salient point of how an issue is considered. If one starts with the principled argument and then illustrates it with an example, this is a top down approach. But if all that one does is cite an example and then, perhaps, never work up to any overarching principle, then that is a bottom up approach. In RR the principle of fetus = human has long been established, and re-established here in fetus + 12 inches = baby.
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2012/10/abortion-and-the-two-bodies-problem.html
    Gosnell’s conviction is presented simply as an exhibit that has currency and underlines the principle, which is that our abortion policies allow the state-sanctioned murder of millions of humans. I know this is tough stuff, but I hope that the above has helped.

    Like

  39. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    Okay then using your words I contend that the Sandy Hook gun deaths is an exhibit that has currency and underlines the principle, which is that our gun laws and policies allow the murder of thousands of humans.

    Like

  40. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    I oppose abortion in general. Wish we had a society where there were two stable parents in place with exhilarating joy in anticipation of the new arrival and the responsible means to take care of all the child’s needs without being a burden to society. That would be great: two parents, a welcomed child who is loved more than your next breath, and a stable, safe home. But, after reading some of these posts, I think some posters have proven to be an excellent argument for abortion.

    Like

  41. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1154am – You almost got that right. The high level principled argument or proposition you want to promote is that the greatest danger to society with regard to firearms is their possession and use under the current gun laws, both enforced and unenforced. While it is a top down approach, the proposition itself is patently false on any number of statistical, existential, and historical accounts (given the evidence cited in these pages). And using Sandy Hook as an exhibit to illustrate the verity of that proposition holds no water whatsoever given the history of what guns have been used for which kinds of murders over what time period, even if you accepted the stated proposition.

    Like

  42. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    What we are talking about is not the proposition itself but the way it’s presented. You have accused liberals of using “issues activism” and I am pointing out that in my view that’s what you are using in this post. In both cases felonies were committed and our mutual concern is how could those deaths been avoided. I believe that additional gun laws would save lives and would be in harmony with the 2nd Amendment.
    In that mode then George what exactly is your view on legalized abortions? I personally do not support late term abortions except in rare cases of saving the mothers life. It’s a tough topic than needs to be discussed in this and other venues.

    Like

  43. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 312pm – No Paul, I am agreeing with a noted liberal academic who has studied the modus operandi of how liberals present and argue public policy issues. It she who has identified you all as resorting to ‘issues activism’. I have merely observed corroborating evidence of her point here and elsewhere. In short, I agree with her because socialism cannot mention its name in America as Upton Sinclair noted years ago.
    And I have argued that additional gun laws would constructively violate our 2nd Amend rights and put us in grave danger of an even more rapidly advancing rogue government which will kill us by tens of millions and not dubiously attempt to save mere thousands.
    Re legalized abortions – I thought I invited that discussion with my 144pm (I’ll accept the provisions of the cited bill) and my 915pm.

    Like

  44. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    And in your view using the example of the Gosnell conviction as a graphic example of late term abortion is not “issues activism”

    Like

  45. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 428pm – Exactly so. Please reread my 1115pm. I think we’re beginning to go in circles on this one also. If you’re still having problems, then let’s lay it down as another factor promoting the Great Divide. (How can two major population cohorts, who don’t even share fundamental elements of semantics and logics, attempt to compromise on governance and public policies? These times are truly different.)

    Like

  46. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    We are not speaking in circles but perhaps spirals.
    Is it not a principled argument that there are far too many gun deaths in this country and that gun restrictions, training and registration can help save lives without violating the 2nd Amendment? I’m not asking you to agree on the argument, just to agree that it is a ” principled” one.
    Let me ask you then, is it possible to have a principled argument in support of something you disagree with?

    Like

  47. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 225pm – As I pointed out before, “there are far too many gun deaths …” is not a principle, but an assertion of value on a purported fact. As the Wilcoxes opined (but did not recognize) on Breaking Bread, a principle re the ownership of guns would be ‘Guns should be owned by civilians only in a manner that minimizes the number of people who die from such privately owned guns.’ Now that’s a horrible principle (for obvious reasons), but nevertheless, it is a principle. Moreover it contains a utility that invites the comparison of one gun ownership policy against another one.
    You guys on the Left don’t state your principles that way, but attempt to start a conversation with post-ridiculous questions like the one posed by BenE here –
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2013/05/ruminations-16may13.html?cid=6a00e54f86f2ad883301901c8a5ab7970b#comment-6a00e54f86f2ad883301901c8a5ab7970b
    With that, I’ll skip your snarky question.

    Like

  48. Paul Emery Avatar

    Don’t confuse my questions with Bens and I won’t confuse yours with Todd. My question stands and is not snarkey but immensely significant in this dialogue.

    Like

  49. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 412pm – Then you’ll recognize that I answered it in 242pm by giving you a discourse on how to frame a principle for debate.

    Like

  50. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    When the positions are so hypocritical and ridiculous on occasions it is tough take you and your opinion serious. To the link you gave that was a follow up question to show how it is ok in your opinion for some people or groups to be singled out or targeted while others it is a scandal. They both are outrageous and as a nation would should tell our government that is not how we want to be represented, selective profiling.

    Like

Leave a comment