[Peace-discuss] Torture referendum

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Well said, John. I gave up on this after a couple of tries and bless you for hanging in. I think the rewrite helps enormously... and I'd even add "that Bush had vetoed" or "that Bush then (or subsequently) vetoed" depending on the time sequence of the two (my take on it finally is that Johnson's vote preceded Bush's veto, right?) Wonderful that Johnson voted on the side of decency this time!
   --Jenifer


"John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
  At 11:00 AM 3/31/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>John, your estimate of your fellow-citizens' intelligence is as always 
>unnecessarily low.

All I can tell you, Carl - trying to remain civil here - is that I myself 
had to read the fucking thing about 5 times to understand what it 
said. The bill would have PROHIBITED the CIA from using torture - a 
negative. Bush vetoed the bill - a double negative. Johnson apparently 
voted to override Bush's veto - either a triple negative, or a 
double-double negative, depending on how you look at it. I had to read it 
about 5 times, and break it down into its component parts just as I have 
here, to determine whether Johnson was for or against torture, and I'm 
still not 100% positive. I think he wants to prohibit the CIA from 
employing torture, but I'm not sure.

The reason why I asked if Johnson supported the actual anti-torture bill in 
the first place is (a) because of my confusion in reading your draft 
referendum, and (b) if so, why not just say THAT? Something like, "Given 
Representative Timothy Johnson's support for a bill outlawing torture, 
which was vetoed by pResident Bush...." ?

But you do what you like. You're a professor. You know everything about 
everything. Why, I'll bet there are a couple of studies that prove 
empirically in a statistically significant manner that my fellow citizens 
are more intelligent, more informed, more patient in reading obscure, 
pedantic referenda than I think they are!



>Two corrections: the draft sentence should of course end with a question 
>mark, and the meeting is not this Tuesday but next. --CGE
>
>
>
>John W. wrote:
>
>>At 06:16 PM 3/30/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a draft of a referendum to be proposed at the Champaign Township 
>>>annual meeting Tuesday night:
>>>
>>>"Noting that Representative Timothy Johnson voted to override President 
>>>Bush's veto of a bill that would have prohibited the CIA from using 
>>>torture, shall the citizens of Champaign Township urge our congressional 
>>>representatives to renew their efforts to pass such a bill."
>>
>>How many Peace-discuss readers think that this sentence is way too 
>>complex and convoluted for the average reader?
>>Did (and does) Tim Johnson support the actual anti-torture bill?

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
---------------------------------
Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080331/334886c8/attachment-0001.htm