He's baaaaaaaack.
Eagle-eyed reader "Shannon" (who, it would appear, spends more time reading Jinx McHue's "Shock and Blog" than is probably healthy) points out that the first anonymous comment here is suspiciously similar to Jinx/Jason's illogical inanity here.
Is it really Jinx, or just someone equally brain-dead who reads his blog and has the requisite lack of sense to take him seriously? Whatever. In any event, we can still dissect the stupidity in that comment, just for the entertainment value.
Consider the combination of those ABA excerpts carefully (emphasis added):
"According to a poll commissioned by the American Bar Association and released today, 52 percent of respondents said that in the fight against terrorism, the President of the United States alone cannot suspend constitutional freedoms, with an additional 25 percent saying he must obtain authorization by a court of law or Congress ... Thus 77 percent of Americans express deep reservations about the president’s secret surveillance program."
The anonymous commenter seems to think it's hysterically funny that the ABA would add those two numbers together to draw their conclusion. The anonymous commenter is an idiot, and here's why.
Note the use of the unambiguous words "cannot" and "must" in the above. What that means is that 77% of the respondents are absolutely and unequivocally opposed to the domestic spying program, as it is being run now. Of this there can't be any doubt -- that percentage of 77%, based on the phrasing, absolutely rejects the current Bush strategy. With me so far?
Furthermore, there's absolutely nothing controversial in claiming that people who reject the program can be said to have "deep reservations" about it. In fact, one can easily suggest that that's a bit of an understatement. (As an analogy, if you're outright opposed to the act of sexual assault, it would be safe to say that you have "deep reservations" about rape.)
Not only is the value of 77% completely justifiable, but it should be higher. The figure of 77% reflects those people who are unambiguously opposed to the program. It doesn't even factor in those additional people who, while they may have "deep reservations," are still willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. If those people were counted, that figure would be even larger.
In other words, not only was the ABA correct, but they were being generous. But, please, do not try any of this over at Jinx's blog. We long ago established that Jinx McHue is one of the dumbest motherfuckers that God ever created, and nothing you write in his comments section is ever going to change that.
So, for the sake of all us, just let sleeping idiots lie. Please.
IN CASE YOU NEED CONVINCING, consider an analogy. Let's say a recent survey in the United States showed that 40% of respondents were absolutely opposed to same-sex marriage under any circumstances, while another 30% would accept it only if it was enshrined specifically in the Constitution of the United States through a constitutional amendment.
Do you think that anonymous commenter would hesitate for a second to say something like, "Therefore, 70% of the American public disapproves of same-sex marriage in society today?"
The prosecution rests.
7 comments:
The analogy sucks and the prosecution is getting laughed out of court. See, CC, your analogy addresses a specific topic while the ABA's poll does not. The ABA asks a general question about the Constitution and draws a specific conclusion. You simply cannot do that. Geez, you'd think that someone so dedicated to science would understand that.
Go read The Actual Poll Results, and you will find (unsurprisingly) that the questions are remarkably specific.
And yes, they can draw a reasonably specific conclusion from it.
No, grog, they actually aren't "remarkably specific." They mention nothing about the surveillance program. They only mention generic "constitutional freedoms." If you want to draw a conclusion about the surveillance program YOU ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM.
The President's rationale for the NSA program is that he, and he alone, has absolute authority to do whatever is necessary; he doesn't need to abide by the Constitution, and he doesn't need to get authorization from Congress or the Senate. Given that, how could you agree that "the President of the United States alone cannot suspend constitutional freedoms" or that "he must obtain authorization by a court of law or Congress" and not have deep reservations about a program that, in implementation, violates these two declarative statements?
If you believe that BushCo's little "spy-on-the-citizens" program is the only place that Bush has ignored the law and constitution, then you haven't been paying attention to much since 2001.
Since BushCo has all but admitted that their little NSA program violates all sorts of statutes and guarantees, the conclusion drawn still seems plenty logical to me.
Gentlemen:
Please do not try to use reason or logical analysis on Jinx/Jason. He is unfamiliar with it, and it frightens him.
CC
Reason and logic are absent from your blog and its fans.
Post a Comment