Impeachment for Gov. Walker Out of the Question?

Not that democrats are any better, but the naked deliberateness of this  Tea-publican deception is amazing. 

The New York Times this morning carried this ad: 
If you like him, (as a person? I do), but the duplicity is truly astonishing in this "poll" apparently designed to prop up the billionaire Koch brothers' favorite governor in their class warfare schemes.

As a scientist, I believe in testing theories and attempting to disprove them.  In this case, my theory that this is deceptive propaganda for economic and social warfare would be disproven if the results were generally reported as "Of people who said they liked Scott Walker, X percent said they support him", or "believe unions have become to powerful", etc.

The current results of people who indicated they "like" Gov. Walker answer Question 1 as follows:
Note the defensive, passive portrayal of "efforts to reduce the power".  Who could be against that?  In addition, the answers have no relevance to the question, which is about "Walker's efforts", not Walker himself.  The answers are about whether the respondent supports "him", not the "efforts".

One has to wonder whether these respondents know that the Governor claimed "we" considered inserting "troublemakers" into the peaceful citizens exercising their free speech rights to petition his administration with their objection to his efforts to reduce citizen's constitutional rights of free speech and right to petition their government, in addition to secure the blessings of liberty and promote the general welfare of their communities.

Do the "supporters" know that the only objection the Governor raised was that "people are so sick of it"?  He was not worried about anyone being hurt, nor that the safety of police and/or medical personnel might be at additional risk.  Apparently the Governor was not concerned about borrowing the tactics of the worst tyrants currently being overthrown around the world rather, if exposed, "people" would react badly.  Despite my emotional inclination personally, seriously considering risking citizen's safety to deceive people and smear those with an honest disagreement strikes me as worthy of impeachment, and possible removal from office.  It might even discourage future attempts to subvert our quasi-democracy by powerful elites, like billionaires.

The first question leads well toward getting the "right" (wing) answer to the 2nd by assuming "the power of public employee unions".  It remains all but impossible to believe that the Yes responses below resulted from examining evidence:
Again: note the wording above.  It isn't saying unions are bad, merely implying that somehow they "have become too powerful", using the passive voice. 

I consider evidence of "too much power" indicated when powerful are able to extract greater benefits from taking advantage or actually harming the weaker in violation of the Code of Hammurabi, pursuing what Adam Smith called "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind", i.e.: "All for ourselves, and nothing for anyone else".

Of one thing we can be fairly certain: the results of Question 3 will be treated very differently by both Fox News and the "liberal" MSNBC since these percentages came out ideologically incorrectly, which is to say: they do not support greater power for billionaires…
I will be interested to see the results of the upcoming trial results.  Will my theory be falsified?  Please post comments or email with any media reports you come across.


Popular posts from this blog

Uncharted 3 Spanish 001

Objectivity 1.2 - Collective Empiricism

Star Trek by the Minute 026: Addicts Aboard!