They don’t elect ‘em based on logic
I received an email from my former Congressman (who still thinks I’m one of his constituents) today, with a tiny survey (push poll?) attached. As a devotee of logic, I hate false dichotomies. I hate them almost as much as I hate non-exhaustive multiple-choice surveys.
OK, the first one: Should Congress allow warrantless wiretaps of terrorism suspects, including American citizens? Here are the options he gives:
* Yes, these actions are necessary to protect our security.
* No, these actions overstepped the law.
* Undecided.
Although a slightly leading question, there is ton left that wouldn’t be left if the answers were simply “Yes”, “No”, “It’s more complicated than that”, and “Undecided”. It goes on to give reasons that are, I guess, supposed to be your reasons if you take that position.
What about?:
1. These actions are necessary to protect our national security, but are illegal and should not be done
2. These actions are necessary to protect our national security, are illegal, but should be done anyway
3. Congress should outlaw it, but it should happen anyway and should not be a crime if the President authorizes it (I actually know a dipshit with this position.)
…and on, and on…
Next: Which of the following best describes your view on abortion?
* I strongly believe abortion should be legal for all women.
* There should be some limits on abortion; girls under 18 should need parental consent.
* Abortion should be illegal, except to save the life of the mother.
* Undecided.
What the hell?!? The first and the second are not incompatible! You can easily believe that all women should have access to abortion on demand, but that no girl should. But what if you think there should some limits, but not this limit, or not only this limit? Then the second and third become indistinguishable, because three suffers from the same problems: if some abortions are legal and some illegal, it’s a meaningless difference whether we consider the baseline to be legal with “some limits” or illegal with “some exceptions”. What are we supposed to do, count up the cases and see which side wins? This is ludicrous. Note that many Christians would fall into the third camp, but might add “or in cases of rape and incest”. What’s the Christian supposed to answer? Undecided? Hardly.
I know I’m preaching mostly to the choir here (my readers, or at least commentators, are, in general, much more astute than the average person), but there’s just one more question, and it’s so ludicrous that I cannot skip it, much as I want to: Which of the following best describes your views on the Middle East conflict?
* We should strongly support Israel.
* We should support Palestinians at least as much as we support Israel.
* We should just stay out of the conflict.
* Undecided.
Again, one and two are not incompatible, unless you’re supposed to read the subtext in the first as “We should strongly support Israel and strongly oppose the Palestinians.” But if this was implied, where’s the “We should strongly support the Palestinians and strongly oppose Israel”? Where’s “We should work through an international body, such as the UN, to decide the world’s collective position democratically”? Where’s “Give everyone a year’s notice to move out, then nuke the fucking area back to a cindery Stone-Age nuclear hot zone so that these fucking morons stop squabbling over a few thousand hectares of barren rock”? (I know, there are tons more options again, but you can write about them if you wish. I’m done.)
And — AND — WORST OF ALL — there is no “Other” on any of these questions! Fucking slimebag. Is he saying that we have to bin our answers into one of his statements, otherwise it’s not a position worth having?
I’m sending this link to him. If only he’d have the balls to post on this blog and back up his intentions, or at least instruct a staffer to do so. Otherwise, he’s just a manipulative, logicless sonofabitch.
Email subscription
February 1st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
The dude’s contact form is broken. So he just is pretty much shit all around.
Let’s hope he likes Google: “BRAD SHERMAN” CORRUPT COMMUNIST LIBERTARIAN RIGHT-WING LEFT-WING CHRISTIAN ATHEIST “NEW YORK TIMES” http://www.house.gov/sherman/contact/ OPRAH RALLY SUPPORT OPPOSE SUPPORTS OPPOSES RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN OBAMA CLINTON ROMNEY MCCAIN.
Hi, Brad. With us now? Fix your fucking website, and fix your fucking surveys. Bye.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Anti-Semite.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Dave, that could be funny in several ways, and I’m not sure which one(s) you intended. Because even bringing up the possibility of U.S.-supported Palestine is considered Anti-Semitic in the U.S. (true!)? Because Sherman’s Jewish, and therefore my critique must be of his heritage and not his logic (implicitly, that we are nothing but our race, a racist remark by itself)? Because I listed “Communist”, “Libertarian”, “Atheist”, and “Christian”, but left out “Jewish”, and failing to recognize it equally on a list of libels is a sign of disrespect? All funny. Or something I missed? Help, please.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Was it because of the time I was pulled over drunk and accused Them of killing my LORD?
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:34 am
F: All of the above.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
G: All of the above and other.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Wow, Dave and Moog weighed in, but not Bob Mike? Must not be a workday.