Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Washington Post Jena McGregor makes bad analogies

Writing about the debate surrounding the replacement of Antonin Scalia, Jena McGregor of the Washington Post, tells us that precedent doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is getting another liberal activist law-creating Justice on the Supreme Court bench. (Well that's actually her argument when you remove all the bullshit.) In the process of attempting to conceal her actual desire, we are treated to a great deal of "ostensible" reasoning. She has her opinion, and we have ours. Fine. Everyone has an opinion about whether or not Obama should be able to put a 3rd Supreme Court Justice on the bench. Republicans are certainly not too happy about Sotomayor or Kagen, I can tell you. A 3rd pick would turn the Supreme Court from moderately balanced to a fully leftward Obamanation. No conservative wants that and yet every liberal wants exactly that. With both houses of Congress dominated by conservatives, why should we allow the MSM and Obama to shove America even more to the left?

Regardless of what asinine rhetoric and accusations you hear from the left, the past seven years of Supreme Court decisions have been a litany of one liberal victory after another. ObamaCare was upheld twice. Gay Marriage is now the "law of the land," etc. Appointing another liberal Justice in place of the Court's conservative backbone—Scalia—would be a leftward lurch of unprecedented magnitude. So no, Congress shouldn't consider an Obama appointed nominee. Jena McGregor maintains that it's Congress's job to consider Obama's pick. Really? If doing your job requires you to allow an egomaniacal asshat to drop trow, squat on the line, and deposit a giant steaming turd on the conveyor belt, then maybe—just maybe—somebody has the wrong idea about what that job really is?

What struck me most however, about Jena McGregor's column, or Op-Ed—or whatever you want to call her pile of disingenuous B.S.—is that she makes the worst analogies I've ever heard. Honestly, I want to meet the moron who could read her absurd analogies and think to themselves...yeah she's right. I'm convinced. Please!
Imagine how bizarre this whole debate would seem in any other arena. No analogy is an exact fit -- few organizations have the checks-and-balances system of the U.S. government -- but it helps put into perspective the absurdity of letting one of the most important jobs in our country's government go unfilled, on purpose, for at least a year.

What if an NFL coach nearing retirement decided he wasn't going to replace a star player who died suddenly -- because he didn't know what strategy the next coach might take? Or if the chairman of a Fortune 500 board of directors decided its nominating committee wouldn't name a replacement for a key board member who died -- because the CEO was going to retire sometime soon?
Jena knows her analogies are so badly fitting that a vagrant would return them to the dumpster from whence they came. So right off the bat she makes the claim that "no analogy is an exact fit." How about a garment with the right number of legs? Can we at least have two legs instead of one? It would also be nice to have a neck hole. Exact fit? Okay Jena McGregor mentioned football and a Fortune 500 Company. Let's take the first example. A star player in a football team dies suddenly. Football players can be replaced before they die. It happens all the time. A Supreme Court Justice can never be replaced until they decide they want to retire, or they die. Now let's take the key board member who died. Key board members can be replaced. It happens all the time. Supreme Court Justices can never be replaced until they decide they want to retire, or they die.

Okay Jena McGregor, here's my analogy. Imagine a world where hundreds of millions of people are unhappy with their government. They have a leader who's made some tremendous mistakes, a legislative body that has done the same. They're saddled with overpriced health insurance that they either don't need or can't afford, or both, and an economy that's been stagnant for seven years. You know they're unhappy because they keep firing everybody on one side and hiring guys from the other side of this raging argument that's been ongoing since the 60's. That argument, if you want to know, is whether we should remain a free-enterprise economy with checks and balances on government, or instead become a centrally controlled socialist fascist state exactly like the late USSR. Now I admit this isn't a perfect analogy, because it's not an analogy. It's simply the way it is.

Okay Jena, in the above "Analogy" should the freedom loving side allow the fascism-loving wanna-be dictator to change the rules of the game because ... wait for it ... that's their job?

No comments:

Post a Comment