Monday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Some SSM thoughts from First Things.
  2. Zoning laws meet the green movement.
  3. Bad arguments meets hypocrisy. Let’s see “background checks” … would not have stopped any of the recent events but are necessary and … “didn’t read the bill” was exactly the Pelosi statement regarding AFA which at the time was just fine. Wonder when he’ll cite the Democrat representative who didn’t realized magazines used in pistols were reusable when citing ignorance.
  4. Just remember, background checks would (not have) fixed this either.
  5. Remembering Thatcher from the UK(raine).
  6. Commandments and Scripture … are not deontology.
  7. The perils of education.
  8. Drones.
  9. Just remember, this is an incentive to save more, not less.
  10. Yer homework.
  11. A photographer captures the perfect image for April 15th. Your government and you, a relationship in pictures.

Well, the Gosnell kerfuffle is in the news.

  1. Dachau’s neighbors and what they knew.
  2. NAF?
  3. Bias in media. I did see an amusing turnabout on this.  One “feminist” wrote an article about this guy 2 years ago, which apparently means that the feminist press has been “all over this” since the get go. Uhm, riiight. Apparently the NYTimes employes only one feminnist writer. Who knew?
  4. More on media.

See?

14 Responses to Monday Highlights

  1. Bad arguments meets hypocrisy. Let’s see “background checks” … would not have stopped any of the recent events…

    The only sure fire way to have stopped the recent shooting would have been a near universal ban on all guns enforced with a strict system of confiscation and destruction of all guns that were legal before such a ban was put in place.

    But that’s a bad argument for opposing serious background checks. If the law is someone with a conviction of armed robbery cannot legally buy a gun at a gun store why should he buy one at a gun show? Why should people who act as ‘straw buyers’ for criminals not be punished?

  2. Few thoughts on Gosnell

    1. Megan McCardle put her finger on the prime issue: Abortion os a ‘yucky subject’ which most people avoid if possible. Hence we have few stories about abortion and the ones we do tend to fall neatly into the ‘abortion debate’ rather than about abortion itself.

    2. The story itself has little to do with the abortion debate, despite pro-lifers desires to make it so. Since the doctor is on trial for murder what is the debate about? It’s not about Roe. It’s not about current abortion law. Like the Martin case, it’s about a local crime story but unlike the Martin case it doesn’t raise questions about state or national laws.

  3. Boonton,
    On 1 … yes … Dachau (and what did the neighbors know) was doing yucky things. So what?

    On 2 … Sandy Hook was a local crime story. And yes the crime is murder … by an abortionist while performing abortions. Why has this nothing to do with abortion? Apparently, because its “not about Roe.”

    I’m working on an abortion post now, because I’m quite loss as to what reasonable reasons the pro-abortion side has at this point. I can think of two, but the arguments are weak. Those being the really bad “violinist” thing and what characterizes being a person. But more tonight (hopefully).

  4. It isn’t about Roe, yes it is related to abortion. Those performing illegal abortions (and other crimes as it appears the doctor technically wasn’t doing abortions but killing babies he delievered thru c-section) should be prosecuted.

    So I have no problem with lots of coverage of the story, such coverage should emphasize the following non-biased points:

    1. Roe is not applicable here. If it was the doc’s lawyer would have the charges dismissed on the grounds abortion is legal, instead he’s on trial.

    2. ‘Partial birth abortion’ ban bills likewise aren’t applicable here.

    Sandy Hook was a local crime story

    Well you’re the one pointing out nearly all proposed ideas to prevent one are either unworkable or would not have been effective.

  5. I’m working on an abortion post now, because I’m quite loss as to what reasonable reasons the pro-abortion side has at this point.

    What pro-abortion side? Aside from his defense lawyer is there any notable pro-choice people offering arguments that the doctor should not be prosecuted?

  6. Boonton,

    But that’s a bad argument for opposing serious background checks. If the law is someone with a conviction of armed robbery cannot legally buy a gun at a gun store why should he buy one at a gun show? Why should people who act as ‘straw buyers’ for criminals not be punished?

    It’s pointing out putting that requirement in the verbal context of Sandy Hook which is being done daily is stupid.

    Because straw purchases are already illegal. You point out that you don’t care about trafficking and slavery because it’s already illegal. Right?

  7. Boonton,

    The only sure fire way to have stopped the recent shooting would have been a near universal ban on all guns enforced with a strict system of confiscation and destruction of all guns that were legal before such a ban was put in place.

    Yah. And more kids (and associated adults) die every day on the highways. Let’s ban cars and confiscate all of those. And knives. And blenders. And …

  8. You may want to touch upon two broad ways to determine when something is a person; process versus moment.

    Moment School- Think here of when its legal to sleep with a woman. 17, it’s illegal, you go to jail. 18 she’s legal. Likewise when is it legal for your kid to buy a beer? 21 yes, 20 and 11 months no.

    Process School – When is your daughter a ‘mature adult’? 8 yrs old, certainly not. Right now? When did your puppy become a dog? when did you get old?

    Current Roman Catholic view? Moment school. Humans begin at conception. Older view? Quickening, also a moment.

    Pro-lifers today? They tend to veer towards processism. Demanding special laws against late term abortions implies a process whereby a 3rd trimester abortion is worse than a 1st one. Pictures of aborted babies, process. Their underlying message is abortion is worse if it looks more like a baby. What’s rarely said is that it would logically follow abortion is less worse if it’s less ‘baby looking’ (i.e. earlier rather than later).

    An important consquence of the moment school is the utter irrelevance of Gosnell. Assuming your moment is conception (as opposed to quickening or 1970′s era feminist argument birth), there’s no difference between an abortion at 9 months or one at 1 month. In fact making a big deal about Gosnell is itself problematic since it implies ‘cleaner’ abortions very early on are somehow better.

    From the process POV, though, Gosnell is important. If abortions happen, its better they happen early than later. Gosnell can be viewed as a tragedy of the worse type of pro-lifers combining with the worse type of fly-by-night medical quacks. Gosnell appealed to the poor who didn’t want to be hassled by protestors stalking legitimate clinics and who couldn’t afford early term abortions. He had few middle class clients because middle class clients get their abortions early or use birth control to avoid abortion. For momentary pro-lifers, the middle class is no different from Gosnell…just ‘cleaner’. For those with a process orientated view, avoiding later term abortions is a virtue…or at least less of a vice.

  9. Yah. And more kids (and associated adults) die every day on the highways. Let’s ban cars and confiscate all of those

    Strictly speaking that’s the only way to stop people from dying in highway accidents (I suppose there’s others, robot cars may someday turn highway fatalities into a less than sig sigma event). I could see how a really bad highway accident could spurn a series of laws to decrease highway fatalities. Maybe better enforcement of DWI’s, improved signals, better engineering etc. Strictly speaking these measures may not have been sufficient ot have prevented the original accident to begin with.

    Given the choice between a 100% reduction in Newtowns or a 5% reduction in overall gun deaths per year via some modest common sense policies, the latter is a no brainer. It becomes an even more clear choice if any reasonable policy to prevent a Newtown is either impossible or highly unworkable. To me at least its totally sensible for Newtown to inspire gun violence measures that grab some low hanging fruit at min. disruption to legitimate gun owners and other law abiding citizens even though such measures by themselves may not have prevented Newtown itself.

    If you’re going to restrict yourself to only measures that would have prevented Newtown itself, you’re setting yourself up for much more activist gov’t and much more overbearing. A policy that would have prevented Newtown would have either come down very hard on millions of legitimate gun owners (such as mass confiscation), or hard on many people (such as schemes to build registries of people with ‘mental problems’ which would have required going out to people like the Newtown shooter who never, as far as we know, ever sought mental treatment) or taxpayers (armed guards for every school, 99.9% of which would be doing nothing but collecting paychecks).

  10. Boonton,

    Given the choice between a 100% reduction in Newtowns or a 5% reduction in overall gun deaths per year via some modest common sense policies, the latter is a no brainer.

    That’s right. Except that studies show that there is very little elasticity here. How much regulation is worth a .05% reduction in gun violence.

    To me at least its totally sensible for Newtown to inspire gun violence measures that grab some low hanging fruit at min. disruption to legitimate gun owners and other law abiding citizens even though such measures by themselves may not have prevented Newtown itself.

    Isn’t low hanging .. that is the measure are costly and yield very little change. Remember the pdf/study I quoted.

    If you’re going to restrict yourself to only measures that would have prevented Newtown itself, you’re setting yourself up for much more activist gov’t and much more overbearing.

    If your measures don’t affect events then they shouldn’t be correlated to the event. That’s my point.

  11. Boonton,
    Is it telling that you called Gosnell “one murder” when he is charged on 8 counts, one of a mother and 7 of viable fetus’s being delivered and killed outside the womb.

    If you have time, look for the Delsol book “Unlearned Lessons”. A short book.

  12. Mark
    Look, although I have two firearms I got them mostly for pedagogy with my kids but I’m not a gun culture guy. While I mean to get back and to learn to shoot better because it’s challenging and interesting I haven’t yet.

    But on gun control I’m not seeing the payoff. I see lots of control measure and restrictions which cut freedoms for very little positive (and some negative) results. I see an incredible amount of lying, ignorance on the control side. Why trust that? Why put lots of new rules and laws on the books which do little good? We have too many laws and such right now.

  13. Boonton,

    If you’re going to restrict yourself to only measures that would have prevented Newtown itself, you’re setting yourself up for much more activist gov’t and much more overbearing.

    No you just have to have voluntary inexpensive programs to train and allow those teachers who wish to concealed carry at school. That wasn’t hard, now was it?

  14. Is it telling that you called Gosnell “one murder” when he is charged on 8 counts,

    Actually I don’t think I said ‘one murder”. I only said he is “on trial for murder”, which is how you use the King’s English. One says “he’s on trial for murder” even if the trial contains multiple counts. I suppose there’s nothing technically wrong with saying “he’s on trial for murders” when it’s one trial that covers more than one murder charge, but people just don’t use the language like that. OJ Simpson was found not guilty of “murder” not “murders” despite there being two bodies.

    I notice when you unexpectedly start loosing an argument you start getting loose with the facts. A defense mechanism perhaps? You fail to note that after my comment about him being on trial ‘for murder’, I said he was on trial for “killing babies”. Interestingly you yourself used the phrase ‘murder’ as opposed to ‘murders’ (see “On 2 … Sandy Hook was a local crime story. And yes the crime is murder “). I’m the first to correctly use the plural in reference to Gosnell. Whatever moral failings you think are contained in using the singular are, therefore, a stain on your character. Don’t worry, I’ll do my best to help you.

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>