The NRA & Obama’s Children

National_Rifle_Association

National_Rifle_Association (Photo credit: ChrisWaldeck)

The NRA recently released a video in response to Obama’s skepticism about its proposal to put an armed guard in every school. The gist of the matter is that Obama is accused of being an “elitist hypocrite”  because his two daughters have constant Secret Service protection.

The ad asks “Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” It then, perhaps somewhat oddly,  drags in the matter of taxes on the wealthy: “Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”

Obama’s view on the matter of armed guards in schools was presented on n NBC’s “Meet the Press”  in December of 2012: “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools, and I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” Obama said. “And, look, here’s the bottom line. We’re not going to get this done unless the American people decide it’s important.”

On the face of it, the ad could be seen as a well-crafted  ad hominem tu quoque.  This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person’s claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of “argument” has the following form:

  •  Person A makes claim X.
  • Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
  • Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true – but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person’s claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

In this case, pointing out that Obama seems to say one thing (that he is skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools) while practicing another (having his two girls protected by the Secret Service even when they are in school) and then inferring Obama is in error would seem to be a clear example of this fallacy.

It is also well worth pointing out that Obama’s claim does not seem to be inconsistent with his daughters having secret service protection. After all, what he claims is that he is “skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools.” That is, he is skeptical that putting more guns in school and doing nothing else will solve the problem.

Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, expanded on the content of the video and seems to be making an appeal for a consistent application of a principle/practice: “The president and his family enjoy 24-hour-security from law enforcement at taxpayer expense, and this ad asks very real questions: If it’s good enough for the president, why shouldn’t it be good enough for the rest for us?”

A principle is consistently applied when it is applied in the same way to similar beings in similar circumstances. To fail to do this is to apply a principle inconsistently, which is what Arulanadam seems to be accusing Obama of doing.   Inconsistent application of a principle is a problem because it violates three commonly accepted moral assumptions: equality, impartiality and relevant difference.

Equality is the assumption that people are initially morally equal and hence must be treated as such. This requires that moral principles be applied consistently.  Impartiality is the assumption that moral principles must not be applied with partiality. Inconsistent application would involve non-impartial application.  Relevant difference is a common moral assumption. It is the view that different treatment must be justified by relevant differences.

Arulanandam does seem to make a reasonable point. After all, if such armed security for Obama’s children is acceptable, then consistency would seem to demand that the same protection be afforded to other children (or even everybody).  Or, at the very least, that providing such protection for others would be reasonable.

Naturally, similar claims could be made regarding all the special treatment the President receives. For example, the president’s plane is maintained to a degree that vastly exceeds what is required for commercial airliners. Given Arulanandam’s view, it would follow that commercial airlines should be required to follow the same practices. Interestingly, Arulanandam’s view could also be applied to almost any special perks anyone receives. If this view were not being put forth by the NRA this view would certainly be seen as rather leftist.

The obvious reply to Arulanandam is to point out relevant differences between Obama’s situation and that of other Americans. Obviously, Obama is the president and this means his family is more likely to be targeted for harm than other families. As such, the difference in protection can be justified based on this relevant difference. Not surprisingly, other powerful individuals tend to secure more protection for their families on similar grounds, namely that they are more likely to need that protection than the average person. Thus, the difference in protection could be justified on the grounds of relevant differences.

One obvious counter to this is, as the NRA noted, that this sort of disparity seems elitist. After all, he and his family are protected around the clock by trained professionals, while the rest of us are mostly on our own (although we can call the police). He also gets to fly in his own wonderfully maintained plane in luxury while the rest of us generally have to fly coach in planes that are most likely maintained at the legally minimum levels (if that). Given the NRA remarks about taxing the wealthy, it is somewhat ironic that this would apply to all the elites who enjoy all those elite benefits that the rest of us do not receive. It, as the NRA contends, seems unfair that Obama and the other elites get so much while the rest of us get so little.  Who would ever have suspected that the NRA would make what seems to be a leftist attack on the privileged elites in favor of what seems to be equality? Then again, maybe they are only concerned about equal armaments and not equality in general.

My Amazon Author Page

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Leave a comment ?

17 Comments.

  1. The protection need not be specifically for Obama’s sake or the sake of the children. It is also a matter of national security, protecting the United States government (in the body of the president) from some level of coercion or disability should his children be threatened with kidnap and/or death.

    Or maybe it is just a perk of the job.

    It would be interesting to know from any available documents what the actual justification was when presidential kids were first protected.

  2. Ron Murphy,

    There isn’t any inconsistency in the secret service providing protection to Obama’s children – because they are an extraordinary case.

    Another way of putting this. The children of Russian billionaires require armed body guards – because kidnapping children and holding them for ransom is something that does happen in Russia. The children of poor Russians do not need armed guards for their children, to protect them from kidnap, as the parents cannot pay a large, or even any, ransom. In the same way banks require copious security measures, while pastry shops do not.

    Ordinary school children to not require an armed guard. The whole armed guards for schools is just an NRA diversionary tactic. Columbine had an armed guard.

    Whenever I hear a logical argument I reach for my gun. It’s impossible to mention every special and extraordinary case, and exception, in a statement. In a purely logical sense, the omissions can lead to apparent inconsistencies – in reality, the inconsistencies may not be there.

  3. Mike LaBossiere,

    “Who would ever have suspected that the NRA would make what seems to be a leftist attack ”

    I’m sure you’ve heard of “socialism for the rich…and for everyone else Free Enterprise!!!!”.

    “on the privileged elites in favor of what seems to be equality?”

    They cherry pick who is and isn’t a “privileged elite”. George W Bush, and Mitt Romney, were outsiders who were off to stick it to those Warshington “elites”.

    Years ago I was listening to a radio interview, 2004 election (it could have been the BBC, it wasn’t an American station). Some Republican commentator, giving the blather about John Kerry being an elite. The interviewer baldy asked him what makes GW Bush not an elite. The response nearly had me smashing the radio – “He’s a self made man. He pulled himself up in the world by his own bootstraps”.

    “Then again, maybe they are only concerned about equal armaments and not equality in general.”

    No, I don’t think they have concern for any kind of equality – when Trayson Martin was killed they didn’t argue that young black people should be allowed to carry guns for self-defense.

    But there is something much more sinister. What do these people really believe? ‘Don’t get high, on your own supply’ also applies to propaganda as well as drugs – did they swallow too much of their own brain wash.

    Ann Coulter for instance. Recently she has made statements in relation to gun violence that were not only explicitly racist, but that gun crime was something that happened to a class of people who were outside her definition of America. She claimed America had less gun violence than Belgium. This is her Gerrymandered version of America – urban, working class, and I suppose, lower-middle class, scissored out of her definition. Larry Prat (Gun owners of America) said something very similar on Piers Morgan – though instead of being explicitly racist he used the term “urban” – though it’s probably the same catchall.

    For all their calls for justice and fairness, are they really believers in injustice, fiercely anti-democratic, and have a very limited view of who is a human being and who isn’t.

  4. While i am not a fan of this particular ad (the particular protections needed because of the office of the presidency seem to trump other concerns), perhaps Mike is wrong to dismiss it and similar such
    ad hominem attacks as irrelevant. While logically, ad hominem attacks do not justify anything, they do indicate that individuals should look more closely at this particular policy and see if the policy is truly in people’s best interests or if it imposes costs on society but help the legislature’s stature/views due to ideology/elite groupthink.
    This is especially true when, in cases like this one, the legislator chooses to avoid risks/damages via their wealth and influence that others cannot avoid.

    The preeminent case was mid-century forced busing where the benefits were much more nebulous than initially predicted and imposed high costs on parents who could not send their children to private schools/suburbs post-Millikan. There, elite hypocracy (see Kennedy on 60 minutes)signaled a distrust in the effects of the policy when confronted with their child’s individual future, while still being content to let other’s children bear costs due to ideological commitments. Pointing this out could lead to increased effort into a given proposal and suggest that thought leaders in a field(who individuals often rely on to shape opinions) may be less secure in their belief) and thus they should devote resources into evaluating if a policy is correct.

  5. Joe,

    POTUS, is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Four have been assassinated, several others have been shot, and there have been many more credible attempts. Many other countries, premiers can walk around without fear. But there is a long queue of people who would like to kill Barrack Obama – from foreign terrorists to home grown ones – the home growns being the greatest threat. After the Reagan attempt (he was filled full of holes) security measures for American presidents have reached nearly absurd levels. When Reagan was shot he was traveling with a small security detail, now any time an American president appears in public they have snipers on the roof tops aiming at people in the crowd.

    Joe, I set you straight on a few other things. By the desegregation of schools, the “elites” were not being hypocritical. They where still going to send their kids to segregated schools – schools segregated not by race, but by class, money, and the geography of money. They were not sending their kids to the same schools as white working class people in the first place.

    Next point. The “elites” have no problem with all kinds of different races being in their children’s schools as long as those children are from the same social class – so they did evaluate the policy – try it out for themselves. It works fine for them. They’d love to have their kids attend the same school as Obama’s daughters. You can be sure there was no “white flight” when those girls showed up.

    The Greatest American Myth: The US is a classless society. Of course this is completely untrue. It has a far more ridged class system than many European countries – though social mobility is decreasing everywhere as economic inequality increases. Educational attainment has nothing to do with race and everything to do with social class – economic exclusion or inclusion. The kids of the white working class who could not escape to the suburbs were as doomed before integration as after.

    And desegregation was not an “ideological” commitment – it was a legal one. A sacred one even. After all, if the second amendment of the constitution is irrevocably sacred, so must the fourteenth.

  6. That got a bit to philosophical for me- seems to me that the accusation about Obama being some thought of hypocrite because he has his children protected with guns and don`t want the same for other schoolchildren can easily be rebuffed the following way: If the risk to normal schoolchildren was as great as the risk to Obamas children then yes- armed guardes would be an unfortunate necessity- since the risk is much lower lesser means will do.
    What I find interesting is that the NRA use that kind of critism as a main argument against Obamas policies- either they don´t have anything better to say or they just don´t speak to sound reasoning. Either way, even if I did think more guns was the way forward, I would not want the NRA to speak for me based on the argument brought to my attention in this article.

  7. Do you recall not so many years ago the lonely heart that at night broke into the Queen’s bedroom? You do! The fact that it could happen and did happen speaks volumes about the much lower real and perceived need of personal security around the leaders of the UK or most other civilized nations. Only in America is there that unique intersection of freedom, cruelty and stupidity to put national leaders and their families at risk.

    But did you hear this one? Not even twenty years ago in a nearby second world country, a madman with a knife got through (the unattended) security and into the Prime Minister’s mansion. Well, what a fool he (the madman) was. The Prime Minister’s wife barehanded took him down. So, maybe that’s the problem you Americans have: Your babes ain’t tough enough.

  8. JMRC

    As I said, POTUS and children has a clear specific needed for defense and armed guards which renders them a special case, and thus the ad hominem attack does not show anything interesting.

    JMRC, I think you do not understand what forced busing was. Busing disregards geography, and forces people in public schools to go to schools outside of their local district school in order to promote active integration. They were fine with not allowing working class people to self segregate to their own schools because integration was supposed to be a societal good but they would not send their children there because busing would mean that integration often involved low income blacks in inner city schools, which increased disruption/ focus on disipline, and lowered the same crucial intellectual social capital surrounding them.

    “The “elites” have no problem with all kinds of different races being in their children’s schools as long as those children are from the same social class – so they did evaluate the policy – try it out for themselves. It works fine for them.”

    The implication is that wanting to exclude poor minorities is not being racist for the upper class; however, you seem to imply that “white flight” is a racist reaction by the working and middle classes. White Flight may be partially racist yet the angst many felt who could not escape it was the same fear that lead the upper class to flee. Busing involved low socio-economic level minorities means that children of an lower middle class “ethnic” neighborhood in Boston would be harmed while Kennedy could preach diversity while letting in Shasha and Malia. This is my exact point. Elites were perfectly willing to force other groups to send their children to low end schools and receive (generally) low performing minorities who created disipline problems as they side-stepped it by going to expensive private schools. I thought i was making an explicit class critique of the Elite using the government to impose costs (and it turns out few benefits) that they skirted and any many others were opposed and responded either by leaving cities or (if they could not) mobilizing against it.

    Another thing: I would draw a line between desegregation and integration. Desegregation stopping segregation by allowing minorities to not be forced from attending a school and integration (in cases like Swann) where the court many liberal intellectuals decided that passive segregation due to housing patterns, etc was illegitimate and must be remedied by explicit government action which trampled on other people’s rights.

    Pro-desegregation and integration scholars like David Armor and Coleman (who published two famous reports, #1 in 60’s found social/peer effects not spending or anything else was the biggest factor in achievement and advocated busing #2 published in the 70’s found busing did not work because of white flight) work was widely attacked before being grudgingly accepted because it attacked an ideological commitment to integration irregardless of costs because of an overriding ideological commitment to move fast and solve the problem of race. The hypocracy that they would not bear the costs associated can signal that those costs need to be looked at with a fine light.

  9. Joe,

    I do understand forced busing. And it was still geographic. It just meant people had to run further to escape it.

    “busing would mean that integration often involved low income blacks in inner city schools, which increased disruption/ focus on disipline, and lowered the same crucial intellectual social capital surrounding them.”

    This is to assume that the children of lower income whites were perfectly well disciplined little angels – I mean it’s a lovely mythology, something that a group of people may tell themselves to feel a warm glow of superiority. But it ain’t true, is it. The same kind of chaos effects the children of lower socio economic groups regardless of race.

    “intellectual social capital”. Let’s take this bit one piece at a time. The intellectual capital of a working class school, is to provide the children with just enough education to perform the tasks allotted to their social class – and not enough to put any big ideas in their little heads. The purpose of these schools is to churn out plumbers and mechanics – nurses not doctors. That a few working class kids can escape the life they have been designated are the exceptions, not the rule.

    The social capital of these schools – and this is what it is really all about. Working class whites feared being de-classed. They’re already in a lower strata of the social and economic hierarchy – they saw integration as an attempt to put them on the same level as working class blacks – or drag them down to the same level. You would have to be a liar or a fool not accept that there was, and is, a skin colour advantage. Being white is the difference that a working class nurse has a chance of becoming a nursing manager or remaining a nurse. In the end of the day, it is all about materialism. Racists construct justificationary mythologies – that “minorities” are stupider than them, are lazy, etc. The typical white construction worker is not reading 18th century French poetry on his lunch break.

    Middle class whites have the same mythology to discriminate themselves from working class whites. I’ve known both – equally as stupid as each other, just having different systems of etiquette. There is also trickery in education. In the UK, drivellish 19th century romantic fiction is deemed to be “classic”. It’s virtually impossible for young working class males to related to these texts, but perfect for upper middle class girls who are in training to be genteel wives, and office wives. An English literature exam is not a test in comprehension – it is a personality test. The closer the personality of your answers match that of a genteel upper middle class girl, the higher you score.

    The “elites” are just as hypocritical and dishonest as any other group who are trying to hang on to their privileges. Hypocrisy is unremarkable, and unimportant. Watch what they do, not what they say.

    I’m not living in America now, but I have lived there. The reality is, that one day, and it won’t be one day soon, there will not be a race issue in America. I’m as much a fan of “elites” bashing as the next man – and yes, busing may have been hamfisted, but talking to Americans who lived through the civil rights period, what would have happened had there been no attempts at desegregation. One white man I knew, said the most frightening night, and next few days, of his life was the assignation of Martin Luther King. He thought all hell was about to break loose – that hordes of enraged homicidal black people were on their way to massacre him and his family.

    In America there is a dystopian cherry picked version of “freedom”. The “freedom” to be immoral. You’ll still hear Southern irredentist defending the confederate attempt at cessation as being a moral crusade to protect their right to private property. That private property of course being other human beings. Southern “freedoms” – the freedom to deprive other human beings of their freedom.

    An indefensible immoral privilege is an indefensible immoral privilege, every knows this. There is just materialism and unjust materialism. Riches through hard work or even blind luck are moral. Riches through the use of some subtle theft or force are immoral. It’s the right and wrong even very small children understand.

    The “elites” generally never pay the cost for any changes – if schools were magically and perfectly integrated, if there was no trickery in the curriculum (like drivellish romantic fiction) – it would not intellectually drag every down to the same level (GW Bush, though he attended several elite institutions was no intellectual by any stretch – he didn’t drag his class mates’ IQ down). Then many of the bogus justifications for the privileges of the elites would vanish (these are the advantages they have in economic opportunities – not in the advantage of the wealth they have accumulated) – this is not something they would want.

    The “elites” only yield when there is a prospect of having their privileges pried from their cold dead hands.

    The morality of making white working class people suffer through integration is countered by the immorality of black working class people suffering without it. That the elites lost no, or little, privileges isn’t a counter argument. But the white elites have lost privileges. POTUS is brown, and next POTUS will likely be either brown or a woman. There was no way they could have avoided this without the use of force.

  10. “I do understand forced busing. And it was still geographic. It just meant people had to run further to escape it. ”
    This was especially true after XXX>

    I don’t think you understand the social science done about forced busing. You are putting it as forced busing versus nothing and said
    “The morality of making white working class people suffer through integration is countered by the immorality of black working class people suffering without it. That the elites lost no, or little, privileges isn’t a counter argument.”

    The problem is that much of the science is dubious about the benefits because busing did not help much and that is why white flight is a powerful critique. The most financially secure, the group with the highest social capital left, there was tension due to race being a proxy for socio-economic level and ended up pulling down achievement in many places.

    Can you look at social capital through a less oppressor-oppressed lens. Rich people are rich for a reason and have either the time and money to impart certain values, which help individuals achieve academically and work/socially. Everyone wants their children to have an absolute gain in human capital, not just to maintain their relative position (as I take your overly class focused attack on social capital).
    You assume that white working class education is to merely impart basic skills needed for working class jobs, a characterization many working class and other parents/students would disagree with given America’s belief in mobility. Therefore your assumption that white ethnic opposing of busing is pure racism is not an assumption that is supportable and

    The “elites” generally never pay the cost for any changes – if schools were magically and perfectly integrated, if there was no trickery in the curriculum (like drivellish romantic fiction) – it would not intellectually drag every down to the same level (GW Bush, though he attended several elite institutions was no intellectual by any stretch – he didn’t drag his class mates’ IQ down). Then many of the bogus justifications for the privileges of the elites would vanish (these are the advantages they have in economic opportunities – not in the advantage of the wealth they have accumulated) – this is not something they would want.

    Your claim negates the long standing knowlege that peer effects are important, more important that money and curiculum (assuming adequate ones), therefore such a fictional world is a world without poverty, natural concentrations of wealth, etc and thus i dont see how it is relevant since it does not seem to be obtainible in any tolerable way.
    If we assume Bush=dumbass we still see that Bush put in schools full of sucessful people and people with sucessful parents who pass along skills needed for success to their children. The 1st Coleman report found this to be the main difference in educational quality (education spending between races was roughtly equal unlike peer effects). When you say Elites will never pay the cost, we are admiting a nontrivial cost to forcing integration via busing and elites can avoid them by using cash to set up alternate systems of education. Working class whites, who do not have acess to the ability to shield their children with other high achievers are penalized by having their children forcibly sent to black schools. The reason this hurts is that (per the intellectual history of busing you claim to know) Armor shows that the black school districts were generally lower socio-economically than the white ones so the mixing generally led to lower outcomes for all, as whites in black schools lacked the social capital around them and the influx of poor people to formerly white schools and exodus of sucessful whites lowered their social capital. The mixing of lower class and thus education level blacks with whites also hurt the contact thesis since Blacks were not interacting as equals

    To fix historic inequalities is not a blank check to do anything, especially if a certain thing does not work, as seen by elite support of theory but rejection in practice.

    P.S. can you specify if you see a difference between schools that are segregated de facto, because of historic housing patterns, income, choice (either as a result of a history or racism or not, for SCOTUS this is a crucial distinction) and de jure segregation where the law requires segregation and physically bars people from attending schools. It is clear that the second type is a absolute wrong and should be rectified, for me at least the de facto one needs to be subject to a cost-benefit test.

  11. Joe,

    For the moment, let’s forget the social scientists, with their beakers, bunsen burners, and slide rules.

    The closest parallel with the American Civil Rights period, is the Civil Rights period of Northern Ireland. NI, was, and is, a very deeply segregated society. America came very close to a very similar civil conflict as Northern Ireland. Something worked – because the conflict did not escalate to the violence of NI.

    There are different ways of attempting to fix historic inequalities – and one is a civil war. In history, if you want to do things the hard way, there are people who will obliged you.

    Tiocfaidh ár lá

  12. I’m confused? Are you saying that since we attempted to solve a large problem, any attempt to solve the problem cannot be evaluated for effectiveness and any hurt a program causes, even if the program does no good, is irrelevant?

    This seems to be your argument and i think it (or a lesser version of it) is the default people like Kennedy fall back on when trying to explain their theoretical support for busing despite its failures in practice. It seems to me morally wrong to impose costs on individuals and take away control over their children’s education (giving them often a lower quality one and thus less opportunities in life) for the sake of a broad goal when the policy in question would not have overturned the (as busing was only strongly in force in mid 60’s-election of Reagan).

    Nice straw man of a civil war by the way, do you see a problem with the civil war scenario due to broad perceived legitimacy of the government in South and North (with the South playing a major role in electoral politics and controlling key legislative positions) and that Busing was often used by courts in northern cities like Boston or Detroit.

    MY broad point has been to say that elite hypocracy highlighted that a program did not work as it was said to and people
    If you are arguing that the people had to be deceived because this one policy had so great effects as to prevent a civil war/heal racial wounds then i think you need to make that argument and that would use social science.

  13. joseph hylton,

    “It seems to me morally wrong to impose costs on individuals and take away control over their children’s education”

    These rugged individuals always had the freedom to send their children to private schools. It would be morally wrong, and ultimately legally wrong for the state to support a racially discriminatory education system. Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

    In Northern Ireland, the British government made it illegal to ask a job applicant their religion. Of course, employers got around this by simply looking at the name of the applicant’s school. Housing was segregated – though completely unofficially, (though if you crossed the line you might find your house being burned down while fat bellied policemen stood around laughing – does that sound familiar?). People could be identified as Catholic or Protestant by the street names of where they lived. The Protestant authorities could always shrug in wide eyed faux innocence that there was no official discrimination in Northern Ireland – that people just liked to live among their own kind – it’s all about “freedom” and defending “freedom”.

    Simply integrating schools is no magic solution. But, it takes the state out of facilitating racial discrimination.

    But your argument seems to be rooted in some weird moral logic. Like saying the deconstruction of the Apartheid system in South Africa hurt innocent white people – so it should have been maintained to protect them – because they were “innocent”. It wasn’t their fault they were born white and lucky. It’s just not fair.

    Protestants in NI used to justify their economic exclusion of Catholics on the basis of Catholics being lazy and feckless. And where was the proof? Look all the Catholics are poor, they lack the grit, gumption, work ethic, soft skills, and personal responsibility to pull themselves up in the world, so they must be lazy. So they must be excluded.

  14. you misunderstand me. the bean counters in social science have found that not only our their costs to white people but the advantages earned by blacks are low or nonexistent (due to integration removing a critical mass of human capital, having blacks associate themselves with the low end of academic achievement having pernicious effects on individual motivation and incentives to excel).

  15. These rugged individuals always had the freedom to send their children to private schools. It would be morally wrong, and ultimately legally wrong for the state to support a racially discriminatory education system. Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

    It is not clear to me that it is necessarily racial discriminatory or wrong if schools end up de facto segregated, as most schools are already ethnically “segregated” (immigrants migrated to similar areas and put down roots). For this to be wrong there needs to be a large level of state coercion which would need to be proved on a case by case basis.

  16. joe,

    We’re not talking about a caravan of German farmers moving to Missouri in 1910.

    Joe, you know the way the Teabaggers can’t seem to get the spelling right on a single at their rallies. What do you put that down to?……Forced busing?

  17. This whole conversation started as an argument about the efficacy of ad hominem attacks and now you use one. However, unlike my earlier claim, this is in the middle of an attempted policy discussion (which ethical value implications). Thus i do not think that it adds anything. Am I missing something?

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can 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>