Thursday, August 16, 2012

The Complex Grammar Rule

When there is a simple concept to be explained, and it takes twisted grammar with things like double negatives that seem to talk around the point to argue it, that argument is suspect.

Here's a tale of two headlines on a Voter ID law recently being upheld.

WSJ: A Victory for Voter ID

NYT: In PA, a Missed Chance to Reject Voting Barriers

A "Missed Chance" to "Reject" ... Voting "Barriers".

For one thing, they're playing out of the Lakoff book.  "Don't use terms that have a positive connotation for the opposition viewpoint."  But it sounds so awkward that they have to be at least a little uncomfortable putting it that way -- confident only in the idea that their academic advisor is right about the impact.

Voter ID ... a way to ensure that the person who is voting is the person who says he is voting.  Most Americans are solidly behind this.  And as usual, the ones who aren't are Democrats -- and not the Democrat voters themselves, mind you.  It's the party.

One has to ask why.   And they'll tell you all kinds of things ... talking points which are all spelled out in the NYT article.  Same ones, over and over.  Arguments that sound like arguments in the same way that the picture of the pizza on the box looks like the pizza inside. (#1, it doesn't, and #2, the arguments satisfy with the same discrepancy toward what they supposedly represent as eating the box instead of the pizza).

Ultimately, it boils down to this.  When you try to hold people accountable, the people who complain the loudest are the people who don't want to be held accountable.

As for the alleged voting barriers themselves ....
"The voter ID requirement does not specifically single out any class or group and applies uniformly to all, he wrote. But what Republicans know, and what the judge should have realized, was that many voters won’t be able to participate in the democratic process any longer. Some won’t show up at the polls, unwilling to leap the hurdle placed before them, while others will try to vote and find their ballots rejected." [em, mine]

There is a huge difference between "won't be able to" and "unwilling to".   Your unwillingness to follow the rules like the rest of us doesn't excuse leaving a giant door open for voter fraud.


tim said...

Let’s play along, as dangerous as that is, with the adolescents of the Democratic Party. If you or I "won’t be able to" and "unwilling to" say…apply for a drivers license, a pistol permit…a mortgage, a checking account…, all things one needs a valid ID for, we would…what, be discriminated against? Be “disenfranchised”? (I just love that word.)

No. We would merely be homeless, walking everywhere, with a pocket of cash and
unable to properly defend ourselves from thieves who would want to steal said cash.

But it is a free country, kind’a, so you can live that way if you choose. Same with voting, you don’t have to (and plenty shouldn’t). But stop already, ya’ Dems, with the silly games about having to show an ID to vote, you just look like douche bags…even for you guys.

Whitehawk said...

Wouldn't it be "interesting" after we get voted ID established in most states, if the Dems never have another majority in congress or win another presidential election (until they discover a new way to cheat)?

philmon said...

Yes. Yes it would.